More litigation is not the solution

FLO MARTIN

What’s the definition for 600,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

Yeah, yeah, I hear you. You’re telling me that you already know that

joke, huh? Well, I know of several parents in Newport-Mesa who

haven’t heard yet, so here’s the answer: a good beginning.

These same parents, featured in the Pilot article “Parents’ suit

going to the state high court,” on Feb. 13, are heading all the way

to the state Supreme Court to sue a former director of a now defunct

Costa Mesa preschool. And they’re suing the small church that housed

the preschool. What do they expect to gain? Reprisal? Recognition?

Revenge?

Who, pray tell, talked them into such craziness? A lawyer, or

maybe two, or maybe a multiple of six? Haven’t they heard that the

primary motive for most legal suits is profit? What kind of a reward

is that?

Over my 60-plus years, I’ve seen my share of litigation.

Lesson No. 1: A five-car chain rear-ender caused by a drunk driver

doing 50-plus miles an hour, who plowed into the stopped car I was

in, left me with two broken legs. I had to drop out of school for a

semester. I lost a UC Berkeley Regents’ annual scholarship. Medical

expenses were paid by the driver’s insurance company but the lawyer

took 40% of the $3,000 awarded to my family. We ended up with a net

loss.

Lessons No. 2, 3 and 4: I have been a juror in three trials. The

first was a rinky-dink waste of time and money. The second was an 11

to 1 hung jury, a very frustrating week for all. The third lasted six

months, with fancy-talking lawyers on both sides.

Lesson No. 5: My car insurance rates tripled after I was involved

in an accident set up by a shyster lawyer and crooked chiropractor

scam. The “victims” were awarded $10,000 for having lived through a

15 mile an hour tap on the rusty, already dented rear bumper of their

van after the driver had made a very sudden stop, for no apparent

reason.

But, my luck turned when I ended up as the rear-end victim, twice

no less. The first time was at a stop sign. The driver turned out to

be a chiropractor. Boy, oh, boy, did my family and I have a few

laughs at his expense. I chuckled over the prospect of “collecting” a

lifetime of chiropractic care as a settlement. But, no, that’s not my

style. No harm, no foul. Mr. Chiropractor simply paid for my car

repairs and we both went on our merry way.

The second collision happened on the San Diego Freeway. The driver

behind me was preoccupied with a cellphone and his morning coffee had

not yet kicked in, so he didn’t notice the slowing traffic. My

station wagon rear door ended up looking like an accordion for the

second time. And, wouldn’t you know it, the Martin clan had another

huge laugh. This time the driver was a lawyer.

I’m laughing right now, just thinking about the damage I could

have done to his wallet. But, no, that still wasn’t my style. I told

him so. And, would you believe, as a “thank-you,” the lawyer asked me

to sign a thick packet of legal forms stating that I would never,

ever, ever sue him? Sign I did. Then, and only then, did my car get

the necessary face-lift, or I should say, rear-lift.

Enough digression. Let’s get back to the South Coast Early

Childhood Learning Center lawsuit. Didn’t the parents willingly

enroll their toddlers in the school? Didn’t the parents tour the

facilities beforehand? Didn’t the parents notice the hazardous

chain-link fence every morning when dropping their kids off? Didn’t

the parents wonder about the fence every day while collecting their

kids?

Two beautiful little people died and lots more were hurt, but not

because of a negligent school director or a negligent church. This

lawsuit has no merit. Even the lawyers know that.

* FLO MARTIN is a retired high school teacher, lectures part-time

at Cal State Fullerton in the Foreign Language Education program and

supervises student teachers in their classrooms.