When Judges Do Their Jobs

When President Bush complains that the country is awash in too many frivolous lawsuits, he often makes it sound as if there is no penalty for filing suits like this, if they really are frivolous. But here's a recent story where some Ohio judges showed that the legal system already has a mechanism built in to dispense with frivolous suits--and to punish those who abuse the system, all without changing a single law on the books.

Thomas Sparks filed suit against Econo Lodge after he was charged for an extra day's stay because he failed to check out at 11 a.m. Sparks argued that since he'd only checked in at 4 a.m., he shouldn't have to checkout at 11 a.m.. He sued to get his $46 back, plus $750,000 in additional damages, and free stays for life in the motel chain. A panel of Ohio appellate judges said, um, no, everyone knows the rule about check out times. The judges found that Sparks not only didn't have a case, but that "Starks had sued the wrong people, in the wrong place, for the wrong reason," and they ordered him to pay Econo Lodge $2,500 for the cost of defending the suit.

Obviously you can argue that Econo Lodge was put out by having to deal with the suit (as the odds that they'll ever collect the fine from Sparks I suspect are slim to none), but that seems like a small price to pay, in my book, for a democratic legal system. Letting judges make these determinations on a case by case basis ensures that people with legitimate beefs still get their day in court--unlike some of the other measures the president would like to see enacted that would have the federal government making  blanket decisions on who can sue and who can't, without ever considering the individual facts of a case.

Comments

[Maren Chaloupka]

Was the plaintiff pro se?