Have you heard the story of the man who was mowing his lawn one day, found something jammed in the blades, reached down to dislodge it (without turning off the engine) and cut his hand in the process? That's not the ridiculous part of the story. He then turned around and sued the lawn mower manufacturer for failing to warn him about turning the engine off first, and won!

Or how about the kids who decided to race cars on the H-3 freeway one night (i.e. trespassed), moved those wooden barriers aside to do so, ended up crashing into the concrete barriers that were set up to prevent anyone from falling over the unfinished edge on the other side‹sued and won?

I'm sure you know many other sad but true stories. The sometimes irresponsible or negligent act turns out to be a windfall for these "victims," thanks to their cunning attorneys, a "deep pocket," and our generous tort system.

According to our legislators, someone needs to compensate the "victim." It doesn't matter if you're only 1% or 5% at fault, you're still at fault. And if you're the one who has money, you need to pay the full amount of the damages (including the other attorney's fees) because, according to these senators at a recent luncheon I attended, "we can't let the poor victim go uncompensated."

Well what about the poor 1% or 5% or 20% "at fault" defendant who has to pay the 100% of damages? Isn't he a victim, too? A victim of a legal system that has forgotten about personal responsibility, fairness, and the fact that you can't get something for nothing. Too many people view the court as an opportunity for profit, rather than a means of obtaining justice.

Our current tort system makes it difficult for civic organizations, condominium associations and even public spirited groups to implement positive changes in our community. It prevents business from actively seeking to expand their operations. It raises the cost of goods and services through higher insurance premiums that business pass on to their customers, not to mention the cost of writing and printing pages of disclaimers that you must "READ BEFORE OPERATING."

For these reasons, we have formed The Coalition to Stop Lawsuit Abuse. It is our intention to work with the legislature to achieve the following:

1. Abolish joint and several liability. Joint and several liability basically means that even if a company is only one percent (1%) negligent in a lawsuit, it may have to pay one hundred percent (100%) for the judgement if it is only one with assets (deep pockets).

2. Eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Part of the business climate for any state is its tolerance for lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits. In Hawaii, just the threat of lawsuits costs us too much money. Sometimes, even though we have done nothing wrong, we must pay to make a nuisance lawsuit go away. Let's put a stop to this extortion that only benefits liability lawyers and people looking for a way to get rich quick.

3. Eliminate multiple recoveries. Settlements and jury awards in Hawaii do not reveal whether or not plaintiffs have received duplicate compensation. So a person could have sued and collected in Florida, and can sue again in the state of Hawaii, and the jury can't be told about his previous award. Let's put a stop to this practice.

4. A cap on non-economic damages. Non-economic damages encompass mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-financial losses.

5. A cap on punitive damages. Juries can award any amount they want to people who bring lawsuits against Hawaii businesses, without regard to the nature of the issue being judged. Let's insist on a cap that makes the punishment fit the crime.

We need your help‹even in a small way. We are asking for the following support:

* The use of your company name as a member of the Coalition to Stop Lawsuit Abuse to achieve the five points listed above.

* Your story. If you have been a victim to a frivolous lawsuit, or had to pay the majority of the damages even though minimally at fault, we'd like to know more. We'd also like to know that judgment affected the operations of your business (inability to expand, loss of time that led to loss of contracts or sales that led to laying off employees, etc.)

* A small contribution‹$20 to $2000‹whatever you can afford, so that we can run a effective campaign against the well-funded plaintiff lawyers. Ours will be a true grass-roots campaign. We know the current economic situation for most people in Hawaii.

* Tell your friends, family and associates. The more people and businesses we can enlist in our cause, the less anyone will have to give.

That's all we request. The Coalition will do the rest‹ working with legislators and the media to get our message out and enact the kind of legal reforms that will bring balance and fairness back to our legal system.

Remember, we can all benefit from fewer lawsuits. Contact me at 247-2072.

A - Did you see that article titled "Fear of retaliation silences businesses"?

B - No, I didn't see it, but I've heard plenty of stories about that kind of stuff.

A - Really? Like what?

B - One guy, John, informed me that he was told to make campaign contributions, and to join the crowd campaigning on the streets, or he could have his business ruined.

A - How could they ruin his business?

B - Easy. In his line of work, John needs government approval for most transactions. If he cooperates he can get approvals done in a few weeks. If he doesn't cooperate, well, he was told that it would be delayed--months or years.

A - He told you that?

B - Yup. It fit what Roy said, too.

A - What was that?

B - Oh, he was really fired up about the politics around here. Used to talk to me all the time about the foolishness in government. So I asked him to write it up and broadcast it. But he got cold feet and refused.

A - Why?

B - Roy explained that he was doing some work around his property and he was scared stiff that if he spoke out he wouldn't get the approvals he needed.

A - Poor guy.

B - Poor guy? Hardly. He's the wealthiest guy I know. But having money doesn't make someone brave. I guess he feels that it can all be taken away from him any time they want. True, I guess. Even some of the bureaucrats would like to speak out publicly, but they're afraid, too.

A - Really?

B - Yeah. A friend of mine, Bill, works for the government. He found an anonymous envelope with a bunch of fund raising tickets on his desk one morning. His secretary explained that he was to sell the tickets or buy them himself. When he laughed it off she said he'd better start looking for another job - that's the way it is around here.

A - What'd he do?

B - He sold them. I wonder if all this stuff hurts the economy here? By the way, what newspaper ran that article about fear of retaliation from government?

A - The story was about events in history. It was taken from a newspaper in Germany sixty years ago.

B - That's interesting. Well, Germany's doing OK today, so it must not have been much of a problem. I guess there's really nothing to worry about.

This is a follow-up to our conversation about SBH forming a "Golf Club," under the SBH Banner for member participation. As I understand "Golf Clubs," any organization can form one. It is essentially a loose association where the participants have a common identity, in this case SBH, the club has a committee that books group tee times, notifies members, etc. Everyone calls in to confirm playing times, show up and pay their own fees, etc. More formal clubs have a joining fee to help offset administration expenses, or a "round" fee, or a yearly fee. Some clubs go off-island once a year.

I think there would be strong interest for a club within SBH membership. Perhaps the board would consider this if you faxed SBH.

Fred Smoot, Phoenix Pacific, Inc.