Introduction
The most basic definition of tort law is a “civil wrong which can be redressed by awarding damages” (Cornell University, 2010). Through the following paper, this basis definition will be used to decide whether two cases, Haimes v. Temple University Hospital and Vandevender v. Sheetz, Inc. were frivolous and whether the outcomes were appropriate. Throughout this paper, eight questions will be applied to determine the merit of the two lawsuits. The eight questions are as follows:
1. What are the facts?
2. What are the issues?
3. What laws apply?
4. What did the judge and jury decide?
5. Did the judge and jury make the appropriate decision based on the applicable laws controlling the case?
6. What are the ethical issues in the cases? Do the ethical issues differ from the legal issues?
7. Based on the research could either one or both of these cases be considered frivolous?
8. How could the business owners have prevented the lawsuits? What advice can you give them for the future?
Furthermore, by apply the eight questions above I will attempt to determine whether the two lawsuits were perfect examples of the issues facing the United States legal system and whether they characterize the ability to people to bring frivolous claims to light or whether they two lawsuits were unfairly made poster children for excessive rewards without full understanding of the facts of the case.

What are the facts?
Vandevender
The facts presented in the Vandevender case is that the plaintiff, Cheryl Vandevender, was employed by Sheetz in June 1989 but in 1991, Ms. Vandevender suffered an injury to her back that resulted in her inability to work (Vandevender, 2011). Mr. Vandevender went on to claim workers’ compensation and undergo back surgery (Vandevender, 2011). However, after surgery was complete, Ms. Vandevender attempted to return to work at