The Town of Hanover finally chopped down our beloved rope swing. I'd like to acknowledge the people who made this possible: trial lawyers. Town officials decided to cut down the tree due to liability concerns prompted by their insurance company, which refused to protect them from lawsuits resulting from any potential rope swing injuries. This is merely the latest manifestation of the overly litigious society which trial lawyers have helped to create.
I do not blame the town officials, for they were doing their job of maintaining insurance coverage for the town. Nor do I fault the insurance companies, because they are in business to make a profit, not to preserve social options. I reserve my wrath for the trial lawyers.
This idea that it is always someone(else)'s fault when a person is injured is promoted recklessly by trial lawyers. TV commercials promoting easy cash for slip and fall injuries and other minor accidents are ubiquitous. The ads invariably mention that "[trial lawyers] don't get paid until you collect money." When "loser pays" rules are proposed in any legislature, trial lawyers invariably oppose the measures because they reduce frivolous lawsuits, and hence, their attorney fees. What few seem to realize is that the legal system, combined with trial lawyer advertising, creates a counter-productive incentive structure in which it pays to file bogus lawsuits for relatively small injuries, because the insurance company will likely settle rather than accept the expense and risk of a trial. This overly protective legal system appears to be cost-free but, as the death of our rope swing tree indicates, it is not.
The effects of this overly litigious society are everywhere. The recent decision to lock dorm doors was made so the College could mimic the vast majority of other colleges, which almost universally lock their doors and generally have more restrictive entrance policies. The subtext to this decision was that if something bad ever did occur in an unlocked dorm, the College would be placed in a precarious legal position because it wasn't adopting the same policies as are commonly applied at other schools. Neither Dartmouth's rural location nor the presence of individual door locks would mitigate our liability. Dartmouth would then likely be held at fault for being unique. Locked dorms, in all likelihood, will not reduce crime, but they will reduce our legal liability. This litigious mindset is insidious because it erodes personal responsibility and freedom, while promoting uniform policies for diverse institutions.
This influence also extends to private parties, in addition to towns and the College. Psi Upsilon fraternity recently discontinued its annual keg jump, citing liability concerns from its insurance company. If someone is brave (or stupid) enough to jump over many kegs onto a flimsy mattress surrounded by ice then it seems absurd that there would still be an avenue to sue if they were injured. Property-holders now share the burden of protecting others from their own stupidity and clumsiness. This is unfortunate because it deprives the community of many opportunities, such as the spectacle of the keg jump and the rope swing. Tradition will continue to fall to the pernicious influence spurious lawsuits have on insurance companies and society at large.
The recent decision to ban usage of fireplaces is another relevant example of this problem. Fireplaces have long been used in dorm rooms as a source of heat and as social gathering places. It was recently decided by the Administration that the legal risk from fireplaces was too great. A well tended fireplace is likely of no greater danger than smoking in bed (which the College still permits) but the former is atypical compared to the College norm for residential life policy, while the latter is not. The resulting policy is incoherent because outsiders essentially forced it upon Dartmouth.
The problem with the rope swing decision, and our legal system in general, is that not all actions are quantifiable in a monetary sense. While insurance companies do put a price tag on fixing a broken leg from a rope swing, they are not able to quantify the value of a summer day of fun by the river. How can anyone put a price tag on an attractive non-alcoholic social option? It's impossible. So in the cost-benefit analysis that College and town officials calculate, they have the threat of legal liability versus the warm fuzzy feeling that one gets from bringing joy to others. The decision to cut down the tree was a forgone conclusion. The happiness that the swing brought to College students and townspeople wasn't worth the risk that the trial lawyers have assigned to the tree, through their parasitic influence upon the legal system.
Most troubling about this excessive legal protection is that the tentacles of our legal system continue to expand into new crevices of society. Like ice filling in cracks in a New Hampshire road, the flexing of trial lawyer litigation pulls us apart. As we increasingly resort to adversarial litigation, we forfeit common sense and compromise. The Dartmouth community has been deprived of an attractive social option due to the pernicious effects of lawsuits on our society. Make sure to thank the trial lawyers.
