The Emergence and Transformation of Dispute:
Name, Blaming, Claiming…
By Felstiner, Abel & Sarat
In this article, the authors effectively present theory on how naming, blaming and claiming are essential to the litigious processes that are carried out on a daily basis. They argue that this narrative must be applied by individuals in any given situation in order legal action to occur and for a suit to be filed. The process is as follows: injury or harm must be recognized; said injury/harm is attributed to an outside party; grievance is filed/brought against those perceived to be responsible; is grievance is ignored or rejected, a claim may be made and the situation is transformed into a matter of legality.
The section I found most interesting within this article was how goals may change through the legal process. What the plaintiff initially wanted in the beginning may not continue to be the objective as the dispute progresses, and at the same time, the dispute itself is subject to change as well. An example of this is presented in the ways in which the courts individualize remedies, effective changing the goal of the plaintiff. The example given is victims suing a “manufacturer to alter the production process,” and instead only being awarded a monetary sum by the court.
It’s somewhat disheartening to think that this could be the outcome, that the goal of social good is forgotten and replaced instead of compensation by the courts, but I suppose this backs up the findings of Ewick and Sibley, in that once a dispute enters the legal realm, it is no longer entirely in the hands of plaintiff/complainant. He or she actually gives up power in the pursuit of power/justice. In the case mentioned in this article, those suing a manufacturer give power to a judge, who instead of coinciding with their wishes to order the company to alter their practices and production methods, awards them monetary sums instead, ultimately changing the objective and conclusion the initial dispute that was filed.
Name, Blaming, Claiming…
By Felstiner, Abel & Sarat
In this article, the authors effectively present theory on how naming, blaming and claiming are essential to the litigious processes that are carried out on a daily basis. They argue that this narrative must be applied by individuals in any given situation in order legal action to occur and for a suit to be filed. The process is as follows: injury or harm must be recognized; said injury/harm is attributed to an outside party; grievance is filed/brought against those perceived to be responsible; is grievance is ignored or rejected, a claim may be made and the situation is transformed into a matter of legality.
The section I found most interesting within this article was how goals may change through the legal process. What the plaintiff initially wanted in the beginning may not continue to be the objective as the dispute progresses, and at the same time, the dispute itself is subject to change as well. An example of this is presented in the ways in which the courts individualize remedies, effective changing the goal of the plaintiff. The example given is victims suing a “manufacturer to alter the production process,” and instead only being awarded a monetary sum by the court.
It’s somewhat disheartening to think that this could be the outcome, that the goal of social good is forgotten and replaced instead of compensation by the courts, but I suppose this backs up the findings of Ewick and Sibley, in that once a dispute enters the legal realm, it is no longer entirely in the hands of plaintiff/complainant. He or she actually gives up power in the pursuit of power/justice. In the case mentioned in this article, those suing a manufacturer give power to a judge, who instead of coinciding with their wishes to order the company to alter their practices and production methods, awards them monetary sums instead, ultimately changing the objective and conclusion the initial dispute that was filed.
Posts
I feel when we spoke of the McDonalds incident the other day in class this was exactly the case. The woman burned by the coffee originally wanted just her medical bills paid and to warn all McDonalds establishments to check the temperature of the coffee and lower it, after being a product of what hot coffee can do (!). This once in the hands of lawyers and mediators, with the repetitive dismissals to acquiesce on the McDonalds ride, the claims and rewards requested only kept escalating. What the woman burned originally wanted was recognition more than anything and to see that this did not occur to others. However, she ended up getting that and then some... in this case though, the temperature of the coffee has been lowered within McDonalds establishments, so she did get what she ordered... (really dorky, unfunny pun).
ReplyDeleteI agree that the idea of a person getting awarded a monetary sum instead of the problem being actually fixed by the manufacturer is disheartening. I'm not sure if it was this article but one of them this week made suggestions for things that could be done to fix this problem. I liked the idea of courts paying the consumer and then taking legal action against the company to fix their products. I think this checks and balances of the production of goods leads to better quality and more reliable products. I also liked the idea of companys needing to keep records of the complaints made and make it available to the public so that consumers can find out the reliability of the company whose products they are purchasing. I think these ideas will lead to better products and less claims of issues with products.
ReplyDelete