Spokane7
61°
March 23, 2011 in Opinion
Editorial: Lawsuit- limiting bill exacts too heavy a cost
If the economy of Idaho is hamstrung by frivolous lawsuits, then lawmakers would be wise to draft legislation to fix the problem across the board. But that isn’t what’s at stake with House Bill 193, which would require parties opposed to megaloads being transported on Idaho highways to first fork over a heavy wad of cash to gain access to courthouses.
Under the bill sponsored by Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries, and passed by the House, anyone suing to challenge a megaload permit must first post a bond worth at least 5 percent of the assessed value of the freight. That money would go to the state highway fund. If opponents clear that hurdle but lose the case, they must pay the defendants the amount they lost during litigation.
So the bigger the load, the more it costs to challenge it.
“I think it will stop frivolous lawsuits,” Harwood said.
But it could also stop legitimate ones, because it’s not the substance of the challenge that matters up front; it’s whether you can raise the tens of thousands of dollars to pass the courthouse turnstile and still have enough left to cover the potential price of losing.
An examination of the case that prompted this bill shows that it’s more about limiting public participation than stopping illegitimate lawsuits. One year before the state held public meetings on the megaload project, the governor, the attorney general and the secretary of state (as part of the Board of Examiners) voted to approve a plan in which ExxonMobil would pay the Idaho State Policea to escort two megaloads on U.S. Highway 12. Three months before the public meetings, the board would do the same for two ConocoPhillips loads.
When the permits were awarded for those four loads, a judge revoked them, noting that the Idaho Transportation Department violated its procedures for examining the impacts the loads would have on the road, nearby residents and businesses and potential emergencies.
Ultimately, the Idaho Supreme Court paved the way for the permits, but the concerns were in no way frivolous. Under HB 193, such a challenge might never make it to a judge because of the payment requirement.
In defending the bill, Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said: “We have a number of frivolous lawsuits now that cost our state money, that don’t accomplish very much but delay our economic growth and viability.”
Fine. Then craft a bill that demonstrates the problem and solves it for everyone, not just a couple of companies. It can be expensive to fend off lawsuit harassment. It does add to business costs. But it’s wrong to presume a legal challenge is without merit because the plaintiff couldn’t post an exorbitant bond.
This bill merely provides cover for the state the next time it decides that public participation is frivolous.
To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on Opinion under the Topics menu.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
berrybestfarm on March 23 at 7:17 a.m.
I think the citizens of Idaho should recall the legislators supporting this bill for acting frivolously. It is a clear violating of due process rights and there is already a mechanism in place to deal with frivolous lawsuits—the courts decide and the bringer of the suit has to pay all costs. Where will the legislative give away to corporate puppet masters stop if We the People don’t take a firm stand?
Dennis Patterson—Deer Park
notrich on March 23 at 4:51 p.m.
To best berry farm,
If a person or group uses law to fight a companys action and loses; does the company have to sue the person or group? How does the state recoup court costs? Especially if the person or group has no money. In other words, as a poor guy I can delay any companys action without recourse. And my delays can be totally frivolous.
I saw that happening a lot when I worked for the state and prisoners would apply for freedom of information materials in hopes to slow government and make money doing it.
Yes, they were charged $.10 per page that they actually used, but used about 1% of what they requested.
For years groups and individuals have been protesting the pebble mine in Alaska. If found that they were wrong, do they have to reimburse the mining companies? But the mining companies have to pay if they destroy the land and water.
Imo, both should have to put up a bond in advance of their actions. BP should have been made to put up a huge bond before drilling for oil.
berrybestfarm on March 24 at 3:49 a.m.
Thank you for asking. There is a difference between losing a suit and the court making a finding that it is frivolous. Court fines follow a person until paid, no matter how poor or their ability to pay. Concerned citizens are not convicted felons.
Dennis Patterson
riverside67 on March 26 at 2:36 p.m.
this new found fondness for railing against frivolous lawsuits by members of the idaho is heartwarming indeed. especially since the idaho house directed the idaho atty general to expend $100,000+ to join in a lawsuit aginst the u.s. goverment that would make don quixote blush.
what a waste of our tax dollars and our resources. the idaho house has seemingly engaged in an effort to do all it can to punish the citizens of idaho.