In “A legal malignancy” (Voice, April 23), Dennis Skinder wrote, “Doesn’t the fact that Dow thought it had to settle because of the cost of litigation speak to a basic flaw in the legal system?”
The answer is no. Litigation would not have cost Dow Corning much if there were no case. Certainly there was a dispute. Both sides had evidence. It was up to the court to decide. If there were no basis for a claim, the suit would be dismissed.
Contrary to common allegations, courts are very careful about admitting scientific evidence only when there is a basis. There are strict and complex rules. The fact is, there was evidence against Dow in this case. Of course, Dow could say, “We settled because we were wrong.” But it’s easier to blame someone else and say, “We just settled because it would cost too much to litigate.”
Yes, litigation is expensive, and that’s a problem. But not for the Dow Cornings of the world. Dow is many times wealthier than any of the injured women plaintiffs or even their lawyers. It’s already risky and almost prohibitively expensive for an ordinary middle-class citizen to bring suit against a giant company that causes injury–even knowing, intentional injury.
Tort suits are rare despite politically motivated claims to the contrary. Any so-called tort reform that makes it harder, riskier and more expensive for middle-class Americans to recover from negligent companies that injure them will be a victory for wrong-doers and a loss for common sense and for ordinary hard-working Americans.
