That’s how the system is set up: It’s fucked, but often times suing is the only chance at getting any real restitution. Our protections suck, so companies can kinda do whatever and often get away with it.

I don’t think most Americans are, but there are certainly enough to make an industry around it…

The thing is, though, if you slip and fall (or whatever else) on the property of a big corporation or at least one insured by a big corporation, and you hire a good enough lawyer, you can sue for way more money than you could earn in your lifetime. Granted, those kinds of successes are the exception and not the rule, but it happens often enough to keep people trying in hopes that they won’t ever have to work again.

This is mostly for white Americans. No minority would willingly call the police especially if they’re African Americans.

Lawsuits? Not on my watch. It’s why I own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended.

Americans aren’t actually that litigious. This perception was created as part of a public misinformation campaign by McDonalds to try to win sympathy when they made their coffee way hotter than it should have ever been, and were sued when a customer had their labia fused together when the coffee spilled in their lap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald’s_Restaurants

A large part of it is our broken medical system. If you slip on something at a store and break a bone, you could be out 10s of thousands if uninsured. The only way you don’t lose everything you own is to sue the store where you slipped.

I’ve heard various explanations, I don’t know how accurate the following is. I’d be interested to learn more:

• the very earliest colony settlements had to bargain hard and with precision in order to survive. It began a contractual culture that eventually extended into litigation

• due to high immigration from many differing backgrounds, disputes had to be settled in litigation rather than relying on social understanding

• the religious culture was largely inherited from the Puritans who had a legalistic and inflexible reading of the new testament. (This unwillingness to compromise is why they were persecuted in Europe and fled to the new world)

• the American identity is ‘invented’ (in the sense that’s it’s an abrupt mixing of many old world cultures) and so national identity was initially based on cerebral activities (the Constitution, Bill of Rights) rather than evolved from a very long history of social bonds found in old world ‘nations’. This required a cerebral precision to be at the heart of identity which easily extended to legal rights and relations

As I say, take with a pinch of salt. But this is the gist of what I’ve heard from people who know more than me.

I had a chat with my American relatives at one point which began with me asking why it seems medical malpractice suits have such soaring high settlements compared to where I am in Canada? They explained it to me like this. Say a botched procedure leaves you requiring constant medical treatments for the rest of your life. You have to sue for any treatments you would otherwise have to pay out of pocket. Where you have a public healthcare system, the state would cover that. You may still sue for loss of employment if you are no longer able to work, say, but settlements tend to be orders of magnitude higher because of those additional costs. Unfortunately, this leads to a proliferation of bottom-feeding personal injury lawyers who try to get you to litigate and overstate your injuries to get bigger settlements.

Threat of a lawsuit is not a lawsuit.

What happens commonly is the threat of legal liability is used as a tool to gain some kind of leverage or compliance.

In business this is very prominent practice of utilizing capital to suppress competition. Inserting trouble + waste of time and money into your competition is very American.

Because the US is a common law country, and most of Europe are civil law countries. In common law countries punitive damages are possible from torts, whereas in civil law countries they largely aren’t

Because if Americans tried to solve things personally someone would always end up dead

I work at a company that often gets threatened to be sued by entitled white people. The important thing to remember is that these dumbass Americans have no idea how their legal system works.

What typically happens, in my experience, is an entitled white dumbass takes issue with a rule or requirement they were told but ignored. They’ll make a big grandstanding show of threatening the lawsuit, because they think if they look scary enough you’ll give them whatever they wanted. Then they’ll get to the lawyers, who without fail will explain to them how they have no legal grounds for a case. Sometimes, if the dumbass is exceptionally entitled, they’ll even shop around a few law firms trying to find anyone to take the case. Eventually, we just stop hearing about these people, because they give up on trying to sue us. They’re all talk and no bite.

They aren’t!

Two things:

1: Americans are not actually very litigious relative to other countries, what you’re referring to is a culture projected by corporate interests violating the rights of individual Americans, interests invested in telling American citizens that they are too litigious, resulting in citizens who will therefore abstain from legally defending their rights when those rights are violated, which is happening constantly and to a degree that Americans should be far more litigious than they are.

2: legal advertising became legal less than 50 years ago in the United States, because it’s obviously unethical and societally harmful. at this point, legal advertising is basically unregulated in the US.

Because The US allows legal commercials and advertisements on billboards and very importantly, American culture is the salient exported culture globally, lawsuits seem wider spread in the US and US culture than they actually are.

it’s left over from the american cultural revolution of the 1950s

One major difference is that Romania is much more racially homogenous than America.

The legal system in the States is descended from the chattel slavery era (similar to Romania), but America also is obsessed with prosperity gospel from Evangelical Christianity. When you combine these 2 factors, you get a system where anytime a conflict happens, you have no community resolution to rely upon. Anyone who can’t enact justice on their own is seen as weak, that’s why you see so many school shootings happen. I’d say they’re not only a symptom of white supremacy but also of collapsed social cohesion.

Sure, America is definitely more litigious but that’s kinda what happens when you don’t have legislation for tenant rights, labor rights, healthcare, racial justice, etc. Your only options left are to either pay a lawyer if you’re privileged enough, take matters into your own hands or seek a communal solution.

Communal solutions are very unlikely to be pursued in a state that despises social welfare solutions to social problems. During FDR’s presidency, America was seen as the golden age of American history due to better than usual material conditions at the expense of non-white people being excluded from these welfare programs. Thus, the “welfare queen” stereotype was created to demonize Black women simply for wanting to enjoy the same level of prosperity that their white counterparts were. You can see a similar pattern of violence emerging in the EU when white people invent a “white replacement” myth as soon as white people drop below 90% in a given neighborhood. Said neighborhood gets labeled as a “refugee hellscape” and gets segregated from mainstream society as to not infect “the civilized white culture”. You also see this manifesting in Romania as “lawless”(according to white society) Romani ghettos that are systemically segregated from mainstream society. Romani people having no choice but to rely on internal solutions get labeled as barbaric, white Romanians doing the same thing get called heroes.

Courts everywhere are much more likely to side with the abuser, what America does a bit differently is that they industrialize their police force to lock up as many people as possible since that keeps the existing hierarchies in place. Romania is more keen on sweeping violence under the rug because that way it’s cheaper to rely on local mobs of men against women, whites against Romani, rich vs poor, etc. to uphold the police state. There’s also the fact that the Romanian state is more corrupt in a not wanting to enforce laws way and they benefit from receiving bribes or turning the other way when a problem is brought up.

TLDR: poverty and racism means you can’t afford to be litigious. It’s mostly middle class and higher white people in both countries who enjoy the privilege of being litigious. Even the poor white people who wanna sue end up bankrupt from legal fees or have to crowdfund for legal costs.