Several days ago, just before Thanksgiving, a gentleman who identified himself as a reporter for the New York Times called our office seeking comments on a noted event pertaining to an accident.  The ultimate headline of the article for which the comments were sought was, “Family Didn’t Sue After Baloon Fell, and Still Wouldn’t.”

The societal pulse the reporter was seeking to place a finger on was the “shock” some people (most ?) have that a (for the sake of discussion,) minimally injured person might choose not to sue the responsible parties.

After a discussion of several minutes the reporter summarized our conversation in the article as follows:

“Edward D. Friedman, a partner at the personal injury firm of Friedman & Simon, reached through 1-800-LAWYERS, said that although the sensational nature of the accident “would probably inflate” the value of a legal claim, he endorsed the Chamberlains’ approach.

“If they weren’t hurt, that’s the right thing to do,” he said. “To approach it otherwise is to have a sweepstakes mentality about it.”

During my conversation with the reporter, after I sought to expand my comment to say, “…a perverse sweepstakes mentality, etc.” the reporter told me that he “could not” change my initial comment.

I will take the opportunity to expand on my ideas a bit here.  We hate bogus claims.  We understand and wholeheartedly stand by the idea that frivolous cases must not be brought. (”Minimal” damage cases belong in the appropriate forum, such as Small Claims Court.)  We believe that a good faith belief in the merit of a case is the foundation of the civil justice system.

Too many bad players have contributed to the cynicism that is rampant in our society.  We take comfort in knowing that because our clients have been seriously or catastrophically injured through the bad conduct  of others, their cases are genuine and their causes are just.