Legal Definitions - American rule

The term "American rule" refers to two distinct principles in U.S. law:

1. Regarding Attorney's Fees:

The American rule generally states that each party in a lawsuit, even the one who wins, is responsible for paying their own attorney's fees and litigation costs. This means that a winning party typically cannot force the losing party to reimburse them for their legal expenses. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, such as when a specific law or contract allows for the recovery of fees, or if a party has acted in bad faith during the litigation.

• Example 1: Contract Dispute
  Scenario: A small business sues a larger corporation for breach of contract, claiming the corporation failed to deliver promised goods. After a lengthy trial, the small business wins the case and is awarded damages for its losses. Illustration: Under the American rule, even though the small business prevailed, it must still pay its own lawyers for the time and effort spent on the lawsuit. The winning judgment does not automatically include reimbursement for its legal fees from the losing corporation.
• Example 2: Personal Injury Claim
  Scenario: A pedestrian is injured in a car accident and sues the negligent driver. A jury finds the driver at fault and awards the pedestrian a significant sum for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Illustration: The pedestrian's attorney worked on a contingency fee basis (a percentage of the award). According to the American rule, the pedestrian's legal fees will be paid out of the awarded damages, or directly by the pedestrian, rather than being added on top of the damages and paid by the losing driver.
• Example 3: Property Line Dispute
  Scenario: Two neighbors engage in a legal battle over the exact boundary line between their properties. The court ultimately rules in favor of one neighbor, confirming their interpretation of the property line. Illustration: Despite winning the dispute, the victorious neighbor is responsible for paying their own attorney's fees incurred during the litigation, unless there was a specific agreement between the neighbors or a state law that allows for the shifting of legal costs in such property disputes.

2. Regarding the Scope of Cross-Examination:

In the context of witness testimony during a trial, the American rule dictates that an attorney conducting a cross-examination can only ask questions that relate to the topics or matters brought up by the opposing attorney during the direct examination of that witness. This rule prevents attorneys from using cross-examination to introduce entirely new subjects or evidence that were not part of the direct testimony.

• Example 1: Eyewitness Testimony in a Criminal Case
  Scenario: During a robbery trial, a witness testifies for the prosecution on direct examination, describing what they saw at the scene of the crime, including the appearance of the robber and the getaway vehicle. Illustration: On cross-examination, the defense attorney can question the witness about their vantage point, their memory of the events, or details about the robber's appearance. However, the defense attorney cannot suddenly ask the witness about their personal financial history or their opinion on unrelated political issues, as these topics were not introduced during the direct examination.
• Example 2: Expert Witness in a Medical Malpractice Case
  Scenario: An expert medical witness testifies for the plaintiff on direct examination, explaining the standard of care for a particular surgical procedure and how, in their opinion, the defendant doctor deviated from that standard. Illustration: The defense attorney on cross-examination can challenge the expert's qualifications, the basis of their opinion, or specific aspects of the surgical procedure discussed. However, the defense attorney cannot use cross-examination to ask the expert about their views on healthcare policy reform or their involvement in an entirely different medical malpractice case, as those subjects were outside the scope of the direct testimony.
• Example 3: Business Executive in a Contract Lawsuit
  Scenario: In a lawsuit concerning a disputed business contract, a company executive testifies on direct examination about the negotiation process, the specific terms of the agreement, and the company's understanding of its obligations. Illustration: The opposing counsel can cross-examine the executive about the details of the negotiations, the meaning of specific contract clauses, or the executive's role in the agreement. However, they cannot use cross-examination to inquire about the company's marketing strategies for an unrelated product or its internal employee policies, as these topics were not covered during the direct examination.