Tort litigation has become common practice lately. It happenswhen a lawyer sees the potential in a lawsuit and suescompanies and people not directly involved in the wrongdoingto make money.

For example, the high school shooting atColumbine was the idea of two teenagers who hid their plansfrom unsuspecting parents. After the massacre, angry parentslooked for a scapegoat. Lawyers became involved and, beforelong, there were a frenzy of lawsuits: gun companies had puttoo many guns out on the streets, sue them; the parents of thekillers should have been more attentive, sue them; the sheriffdepartment didn't stop it, sue them.

Another primeexample of tort litigation involves the tobacco industry. Icannot understand why people should sue a tobacco company whenthey get cancer from the tar in cigarettes that have warninglabels. Wouldn't it be absurd if we sued Coca-Cola for thecaffeine they put in their soft drinks?

While it maysound heroic when the media declares a victory over thetobacco industry or gun manufacturers, those epochal caseshave paved the way for some pretty ridiculous cases. Some ofthe silliest litigation cases ever include the person who suedMcDonald's for millions because she burned herself with coffeeshe "didn't know was hot" (I love cold coffee), or the personwho misused a pair of clippers and mutilated himself (noinstructions and/or warnings) and, my personal favorite: theperson who electrocuted himself when he peed on electricrailroad tracks (no common sense).

Tort litigation hasgone too far and the practice of finding scapegoats must stop.Lawyers with an eye on their wallets will find a way to getmoney from companies who make products for us, the consumer,which will ultimately mean one thing in the end: we are theones who pay.