Seriously, this is why we need tort reform. In May of 2016, police in Casper WY received a call about a man allowing some very young children to drive a vehicle in a parking lot that is empty. No big deal but they seemed to think that there's an issue.

Officer Garrett and officer Carlson responded to the scene with officer Garrett arriving first. She contacts David Wolosin, who is in the passenger seat of the vehicle. A 3-year-old is driving the vehicle. Wolosin exits the vehicle as officer Carlson arrives and tells them he is just letting his niece and nephew have some fun in an empty parking lot. I believe the other child is 5 or 6 years old. It wasn't a big deal and officers Garrett and Carlson we're just going to give Wolosin a warning and leave. They just wanted to make sure that Wolosin was not in some way intoxicated or impaired. Wolosin was at first cooperative but when they asked to conduct a field sobriety test, he moved to the rear of his vehicle and put his hand behind his back about his beltline. Officer Carlson took a couple of steps toward him when Wolosin pulled the gun and began shooting.

Officer Carlson was struck 9 times. He spent a month in the intensive care unit with significant life threatening injuries and he is now permanently disabled not having full use of his left leg due to nerve damage , he has heart problems due to internal CPR that had to be conducted several times, and his plans with his wife to have more children are dashed because of injuries to his groin. But now officer Carlson, officer Garrett and the city of Casper have a new fight on their hands.

The family of David Wolosin is suing the three claiming emotional distress. The 2 young children in the vehicle at the time Wolosin began shooting have understandably suffered emotional trauma. The rest of Wolosin’s family members are also suing for wrongful death. The attorney claims in the pleading that Wolosin was a loving uncle only trying to be a friend to his niece and nephew. They allege that the officers involved in the incident were known or should have been known to be overly aggressive were known or should have been known to use excessive force in nonenforcement situations. It should be noted that there is a dash Cam video that clearly shows both officers were very relaxed during the initial discussions and that both had stellar records.

This lawsuit is frivolous and while the city claims that they will fight the lawsuit it is more likely than not that at some point they will settle the lawsuit , which is demanding $700,000 in compensation, for some amount that will probably give the family a few $1000 and will give the attorneys 10s of thousands of dollars in fees. It is a common practice whether it involves municipalities, corporations, or even individuals who have insurance to pay defense costs and possible judgments.

These frivolous lawsuits cost us millions and 10s of millions of dollars a year just because when you are sued you must pay an attorney. Defense attorneys do not work for free. These TV attorneys don't get paid unless you prevail when you are suing someone else. As I have said multiple times when we've addressed this issue on the radio show in the past, a judge can award the prevailing party their attorney’s fees but rarely when the defendant wins do they do so. often when the plaintiff does prevail they not only collect 35 or 40% of the judgment as per the agreement with their client but they also file a motion asking the judge to award them attorneys fees from the defendant and it is granted much more often than not. So those attorneys often collect twice.

I have proposed over the years , gosh now decades, one type of reform that would significantly limit frivolous lawsuits. Right now it is less expensive for an insurance company or defendant to settle a lawsuit for 10 or 20 or $30,000 rather than pay defense costs even if they feel like they would prevail at trial. Plaintiff attorneys know this and can make a quick dollar without much effort so this encourages the filing of frivolous lawsuits.

My solution is to require these plaintiff attorneys to pay a corresponding amount of the defendants attorneys fees if they lose the case. If the plaintiff attorney has a contingency agreement with their client that would result in the attorney being paid 40% of any settlement or judgment and they lose the case then they would be required to pay 40% of the defendants attorneys fees. That would make the plaintiff attorney take a hard look at whether or not the case brought to them has merit.

Many in the trial attorneys Association say this would prevent poorer clients who have been wronged from access 2 their legal remedy but that is not true. If an attorney looks at the case and believes that I am truly has been wronged and is deserving of compensation for that wrong , the attorney would have no problem taking the case. It would also provide a better representation for the plaintiff because the attorney working on their behalf would have to be very diligent in making sure they have done everything they can to present a strong case.

The cost to individuals, insurance companies, the medical community, and corporations for having to defend these cases is astronomical. It increases the cost of doing business for all of them significantly and if this one piece of tort reform or to be implemented we would see significant cost reductions in things like auto insurance or medical malpractice insurance or just the cost of purchasing goods and services. But of course the trial lawyers spend a lot of money lobbying our politicians every year to make sure nothing like this happens.