THE ABUSE OF PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION courts in Maryland, and I rather expect that commercial litigation is not making the same progress, and I think the cause is rather apparent. The possibility for accidents, with the dangerous agencies in use in this progressive hour, is getting greater all the time, and the individual's bump of caution is not increasing in the same proportion, hence the result, more accidents, more in juries, more supposed wrongs to be re dressed and more damage suits; while on the other hand a general uniformity in our commercial laws, a simplified code of plead ing, calling for speedy judgments, and a per sistent mode of dunning, backed Up by organized collection agencies, have in my opinion all tended to reduce what is termed commercial litigation. Then again, we must remember that the law upon matters com mercial can be settled in a given case and be of binding effect in a commercial case of like character, while on the other hand we are told that negligence is relative, and that its presence or absence depends upon the facts of each case, and no general rule appli cable to all cases can be laid down, so it seems to me until the world changes or we have some positive enactments damage liti gation will flourish. It is true that there seems to be in the air a sentiment at this time against damage suits, and you may take any individual who is outspoken in this direction, but let him meet with and have an accident, whether with a car, an automobile, a bicycle, or a fly-wheel, then his case is the real thing, unlike all other damage cases, and his whole nature is changed and he wants redress for his sup posed wrongs. The courts are open to him and in he goes if a settlement is not affected. Now ought the courts to be open to him or should they be closed? That is the question I take it. Well who is to determine the question? Should his lawyer do it? Sup pose his lawyer is a good one, conscientious and wants to act fairly and justly in the matter to his client, will not an illustration give us some light? The following case
209
occurred in Maryland, within the last i& months. A child is injured; the father brings suit for his son's injuries; case tried and allowed to go to the jury; jury disagrees; case tried again before another judge and jury; case allowed to go to the jury; jury renders verdict for plaintiff covering in juries. Appeal taken, appellant court says case should never have been submitted to the jury at all, and judgment reversed with out awarding a new trial. Now who is re sponsible for the boy's injuries, the time consumed in the three hearings of the case, and the costs of the proceedings? Two differ ent trial judges said plaintiff had made out prima facie case, appellate court said no. The question is, who is to blame? Can it be said that the plaintiff's attorney should never have brought the suit? Two different judges said his client had a case, but in the end it turned out that he had none, and this by the court of last resort. If a case is tried and won to a finish and fairly won, who can say . that it should never have been insti tuted? We will not get an answer until our jurisprudence is changed. Then it is the cases that are lost to the plaintiff, which should never have been instituted, and un necessarily brought about the crowded con dition of our dockets, and consumed the time of our courts and left in many instances its trail of unpaid costs. The bar is charged as being responsible for this class of cases, but in my opinion in many in stances wrongfully charged. I again refer to the above illustration. If a lawyer tells his client he has a case when the lawyer believes he has not, and institutes proceed ings with the hope of compromise, or for the purposes of vexation or any other purpose, then the attorney is to be censured, because he has polluted his higli office, and such an attorney is a marked man, and will soon seek his proper level among the shysters of the profession. I hope this discussion will tell us what treatment we can serve up to this class of individuals. It occurs to me if you can get rid of the shysters at the bar
