15

There are a number of questions asked on this site along the lines of "Can I be sued for ...?" or "Can I be prosecuted for ...?"

My instinctive and admittedly bloody-minded reaction is to write something like:

Of course you can! One of the beautiful things of living under the rule of law is that anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason. Perhaps you are asking about their prospects of success?

I'm looking for thoughts on more constructive and less patronising ways of handling this.

Please note: To date I have been able to control my instincts :)

7
  • "Beautiful?" Personally, I think that part warrants a bit more obvious sarcasm (at least I hope it was sarcasm), but otherwise that seems like a fair comment to inspire a better edit. Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 2:42
  • 1
    @feetwet No sarcasm intended, I don't like getting sued but I like the freedom of being able to sue you - freedom = beauty or some such philosophical mumbo-jumbo Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 2:48
  • 4
    There's something to be said about reading questions as being: 1) related to the law; and 2) non-trivial. While we could read any question not about legal process/procedure as being non-legal, it's not helpful to the site to do so. Similarly, while we could read any question as is it possible for someone to sue me?, it's more helpful to read it as how likely are they to be successful in suing me? Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 3:21
  • 1
    Yeah, it's clear that a useful answer would address likelihood of success rather than treat the question as a standing issue. Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 5:19
  • @nomenagentis Standing can actually be quite relevant if the question is "can I be sued by person X?" In that case, the answer may well be "said lawsuit would be immediately dismissed for lack of standing, as only Y can sue." Commented Aug 6, 2015 at 16:39
  • @cpast Yeah, absolutely, there are certain questions where it is clear that standing is an issue. Commented Aug 6, 2015 at 17:05
  • law.stackexchange.com/q/1628/10 is a question I liked whose answers can serve as a general response to the "can I be sued?" fear. Commented Aug 15, 2015 at 3:42

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13

I suggest we interpret such questions as "If I do this, and [the entity in question] sues me, will they probably win?" or perhaps "If I do this, and [the entity in question] sues me, does the law say that they should win?"

I think that's what the askers are usually interested in. We can add the disclaimer "Anybody can sue you for any reason. Will they win? Read the rest of my answer for that." to make sure they understand but the answers to such questions should attempt to give the likelihood of the hypothetical plaintiff winning.

For example:

  • Can I be sued for walking across a lawn with a sign "No walking"?
  • Uh, yeah, but whoever sues you will waste a lot of money on a lawsuit that gives them nothing.
2
  • 5
    I think we shouldn't add the disclaimer "anyone can sue you for any reason". It adds to the noise, and unless it's patently clear that they're asking about standing rather than prospects of success, it adds unnecessary noise to the answer. I would say that most, if not all, of the questions so far have been about likelihood of success rather than standing. Commented Aug 7, 2015 at 23:21
  • 3
    Also worth noting petty people may spend 200K on a civil case just to get 50K in return and think the case was a resounding success for the misery it induced the person they disliked. Don't how likely it is for attorneys to concern themselves with petty vendettas but it is possible. Commented May 19, 2023 at 10:38
2

I also think that these questions should not be interpreted literally. Most non-lawyers do not have a proficient grasp of the highly precise language used by lawyers, and so are very likely to phrase questions in a way that lawyers will take exception to. Interpreting "Can I be sued for X?" or "Can I sue for X?" as procedural questions on whether a pleading opening a lawsuit for X will be accepted by a court clerk for placement on a docket and not on the substantive sufficiency of the pleading or the case is disingenuous. This is not what the question-askers are asking. They are asking whether something is a substantively valid cause of action, that, if proven in court to the required standard of evidence, would result in a judgment against the defendant. They just do not know how to phrase their question in proper legalese. Attempts to critique a poster's use of the verb "can" as opposed to "may" are similarly disingenuous, as very few people are concerned with whether it is physically possible to deliver pleadings to a court. They want to know if something is a valid cause of action.

I therefore propose a policy of this form:

Unless it is clear from context that a poster is asking about the mechanical or procedural process to write a civil suit or how to comply with technical requirements for filing with the intake or other clerk, questions of the general form "Can I [or someone else] sue for X?" should be interpreted as "Is X a valid civil cause of action?"

This policy should also apply mutatis mutandis to criminal law. The question "Can I be arrested for X?" should be interpreted as "Is X a crime?" unless it is clear from the context that the poster is asking about the technical process of arrest or the scope of a law enforcement officer's authority to detain as opposed to a question on substantive criminal law.

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.