It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: Libertas on February 15, 2012, 11:13:09 AM
-
I blame the ::cussing:: lawyers! Everyone has been conditioned to fear any and all potential liability issues at any cost, and often times the cost is our very freedom! If not for these ambulance-chasing assholes and prick judges who allow to hear these frivolous suits, Amercia wouldn't be a mere shodow of its former self!!!
::gaah::
-
I blame the ::cussing:: lawyers! Everyone has been conditioned to fear any and all potential liability issues at any cost, and often times the cost is our very freedom! If not for these ambulance-chasing assholes and prick judges who allow to hear these frivolous suits, Amercia wouldn't be a mere shodow of its former self!!!
::gaah::
!!
-
I blame the ::cussing:: lawyers! Everyone has been conditioned to fear any and all potential liability issues at any cost, and often times the cost is our very freedom! If not for these ambulance-chasing assholes and prick judges who allow to hear these frivolous suits, Amercia wouldn't be a mere shodow of its former self!!!
::gaah::
Enabled by people who won't get off their butts to go ask their neighbor to stop the kid from hitting the baseball over the fence and ruining the flowers. He'd rather sue. But even if he does get out of his chair the neighbor will be pissed off at the mere suggestion that the kid shouldn't do it and won't be reasonable. Hello, frivolous lawsuit.
How is frivolous to be defined?
Should we not also blame the people who sit on these juries and award these outrageous amounts? Should the jurors award (for example) a family represented by John Edwards only $25,000 instead of $25 million for the death of their child due to a doctor's incompetence? If a person is blind for the rest of his life because a doctor allowed an inexperienced doctor to assist in the surgery should that person make do/accept his fate? Maybe not even sue? If a woman ends up with kidney disease because the doctor prescribed the wrong medicine should not relief come in the form of monetary compensation? What should be the limit?
We have the right to our day in court as defined by our country's laws --at what point do we limit that?
Lawyers didn't advertise until what 20-30 years ago? Perhaps that would help if we prohibited advertising...if we could justify limiting lawyers' free speech. We do it with cigarette makers.
My understanding is that lawyers can't refuse a case anyway (except they can refer it to someone if it's out of their area of expertise). Maybe someone knows a lawyer and can ask if that's true.
::thinking:: ::thinking:: ::thinking::
Not saying something shouldn't be done. Just wondering how to do it. Any thoughts?
(perhaps need to move this to a new thread)
-
Done. Have at it. ;)
-
To me, the problem is that anybody can sue anybody for any (or NO) reason. At least a partial solution to the problem is to force anyone who files a suit against someone, that is shown without cause, to pay for the lawyer's fees of the defendant. This system has some problems, that need to be worked out, but I believe it's this way in some other countries and it has been shown to discourage frivolous lawsuits.
-
To me, the problem is that anybody can sue anybody for any (or NO) reason. At least a partial solution to the problem is to force anyone who files a suit against someone, that is shown without cause, to pay for the lawyer's fees of the defendant. This system has some problems, that need to be worked out, but I believe it's this way in some other countries and it has been shown to discourage frivolous lawsuits.
"Loser pays" would go a LONG way toward preventing frivolous lawsuits. It is a slice of common sense that cannot be denied.
-
Perhaps any lawyer who, for a given period of time, has over a certain percentage of the cases in which he represented the plaintiff thrown out or ruled against will be disbarred or put on some sort of "probation". This would deter lawyers from habitually representing plaintiffs who have flimsy or non-existent cases.
-
Hmmm, on the face of it, it seems like a solution--lawsuits without cause would incur the fees of the defense. I've seen suggestions as simple as loser pays. But that seems like it would shut down justifiable suits too.
Would frivolous be something without cause? So how would without cause be defined? If the judge threw it out on the first day, second day? If the person suing loses? Does losing presuppose that case was without cause?
So if I sue you for $50 million after tripping on your sidewalk because you didn't have a sign up saying being on a sidewalk can be dangerous and I win is the lawsuit not frivilous because I won?
Anyone have any idea of how to define frivolous? Maybe it would be easier to persuade people not to sue?
Perhaps any lawyer who, for a given period of time, has over a certain percentage of the cases in which he represented the plaintiff thrown out or ruled against will be disbarred or put on some sort of "probation". This would deter lawyers from habitually representing plaintiffs who have flimsy or non-existent cases.
I'm not sure the problem exists with a lawyer who habitually represents flimsy cases because if that person has many of those cases thrown out then it can't be those cases that are burdening us. It would be the ones that he won perhaps that are the problem. But if he won how could it be a flimsy case?
-
I'm not sure the problem exists with a lawyer who habitually represents flimsy cases because if that person has many of those cases thrown out then it can't be those cases that are burdening us. It would be the ones that he won perhaps that are the problem. But if he won how could it be a flimsy case?
I suggest it would deter the "shotgun" approach by ambulance chaser types, who might well have 80% of their cases thrown out but are making up for it and then some with the 20%. A lot of times it just comes down to the theater of the courtroom, a particularly gullible group of jurors in this or that case, and the fact that for big wealthy defendants it's literally cheaper to "lose" than to win.
-
We used to have a system presided over by judges who would decide the
validity of a case. He would decide whether it was a frivolous case or not.
The judge had the capability to discern these things and to penalize a
lawyer if he was repetitively lax in qualifying his cases.
Regretfully judges, do to their incestuous nature relying on decisions of their
colleagues and commingling with politicians, no longer have the capacity to
judge the validity of a suit; therefore, just like the rest of America, anything
goes.
-
I'm thinking along the lines of Charles. We used to have "the reasonable man" standard in our jurisprudence, but with the advent of activist judges and shyster lawyers that quickly got shoved aside and now the inmates run the asylum. Plus, we are confusing frivolous law suits with broader tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits used to be dismissed by prudent judges using the reasonable man standard and the courts remained free of case overload. Frivolous can be described as "I know it when I see it". Tort reform aims to cap excessive punitive damages which have been a cash cow for trial lawyers for far too long. Should someone sue for a valid malpractice case or an accident where clear negligence of an employer was present? Sure, but should we be bankrupting businesses and see geometric increases in malpractice insurance premiums that raise costs for us all? I say hell no. We can quibble over the the level of compensation for certain cases, but that the system has been grossly abused cannot be denied.
-
In my opinion, one is entitled to relief for actual damages and recompense for related future expenses; one is NOT entitled to millions for "pain and suffering". How is this quantified, anyway, when "pain and suffering" are individual determinations?
-
Probably would have to set threshholds for loss of life being the highest and work your way down. It is not a pleasant task assigning value to something which is invaluable, and that is why the sky has been the limit on punitive damages. But dodging the issue is not the answer. I'm not saying I know what it should be in each case, but I am saying Congress should establish it and amend it as necessary. Something has to be better than what we have now.
-
Probably would have to set threshholds for loss of life being the highest and work your way down. It is not a pleasant task assigning value to something which is invaluable, and that is why the sky has been the limit on punitive damages. But dodging the issue is not the answer. I'm not saying I know what it should be in each case, but I am saying Congress should establish it and amend it as necessary. Something has to be better than what we have now.
No, imo, no. There are thresholds already calculated for loss of life, future earnings and the like. One cannot value the inquantitative and therein lies the category from which "pain and suffering" emanates.
-
Probably would have to set threshholds for loss of life being the highest and work your way down. It is not a pleasant task assigning value to something which is invaluable, and that is why the sky has been the limit on punitive damages. But dodging the issue is not the answer. I'm not saying I know what it should be in each case, but I am saying Congress should establish it and amend it as necessary. Something has to be better than what we have now.
No, imo, no. There are thresholds already calculated for loss of life, future earnings and the like. One cannot value the inquantitative and therein lies the category from which "pain and suffering" emanates.
Then it would have to be discarded, as the primary issues have already been dealt with.
-
Probably would have to set threshholds for loss of life being the highest and work your way down. It is not a pleasant task assigning value to something which is invaluable, and that is why the sky has been the limit on punitive damages. But dodging the issue is not the answer. I'm not saying I know what it should be in each case, but I am saying Congress should establish it and amend it as necessary. Something has to be better than what we have now.
No, imo, no. There are thresholds already calculated for loss of life, future earnings and the like. One cannot value the inquantitative and therein lies the category from which "pain and suffering" emanates.
Then it would have to be discarded, as the primary issues have already been dealt with.
It would, as I wrote: how can a jury possibly correctly award this one or that for their pain and suffering when these are not quantifiable? Just more rewarding of who is the biggest victim.
-
Probably would have to set threshholds for loss of life being the highest and work your way down. It is not a pleasant task assigning value to something which is invaluable, and that is why the sky has been the limit on punitive damages. But dodging the issue is not the answer. I'm not saying I know what it should be in each case, but I am saying Congress should establish it and amend it as necessary. Something has to be better than what we have now.
No, imo, no. There are thresholds already calculated for loss of life, future earnings and the like. One cannot value the inquantitative and therein lies the category from which "pain and suffering" emanates.
Then it would have to be discarded, as the primary issues have already been dealt with.
It would, as I wrote: how can a jury possibly correctly award this one or that for their pain and suffering when these are not quantifiable? Just more rewarding of who is the biggest victim.
I guess I am getting sleepyheaded and forgot we already established criteria in the primary award phase. But you are right, assigning additional value on something so purely subjective is impossible, so jurors are forced to shoot the moon in this kind of rigged game.
-
How about a 10% value added to the actual cost. Just like our suffering we go through on
hold and punching 1 through 10 to arrive at customer service. If it cost that person X number of
dollars over a period of time 1? or 3yr. They went through a lot of trauma just to recover from
someone's wrongful deed. That person should pay a penalty and it shouldn't go to the state
it should go to the aggrieved. Just make it a flat rate formula.
-
How about a 10% value added to the actual cost. Just like our suffering we go through on
hold and punching 1 through 10 to arrive at customer service. If it cost that person X number of
dollars over a period of time 1? or 3yr. They went through a lot of trauma just to recover from
someone's wrongful deed. That person should pay a penalty and it shouldn't go to the state
it should go to the aggrieved. Just make it a flat rate formula.
I still say no. Payment to atone for physical damages that can be calculated, however faulty, is one thing. Psychic damage is not within our purview. That's what religion is for.
-
I'm not talking psychic damage. And I don't need to itemize it. If you are tied
up within the legal system and say, the medical community for three years trying
to right a wrong. The cost to you is more than the dollars and cents for lawyers
and phone calls etc. They caused the ill and did not own up to it. They fought
you when they were wrong, they are guilty and owe for the wrong but also they
should be penalized and the state is not the one to benefit from the penalty.
The wrongful should be penalized. The aggrieved should receive payment for such.
This form of penalty predates the USA IIRC, maybe Biblical, not sure. I'm not talking
the moon, it could be one fixed formula for all cases. No surprises, go to court and lose,
it's cost plus.
-
I'm not talking psychic damage. And I don't need to itemize it.
I'm sorry, but, legally you do.
If you are tied
up within the legal system and say, the medical community for three years trying
to right a wrong. The cost to you is more than the dollars and cents for lawyers
and phone calls etc. They caused the ill and did not own up to it. They fought
you when they were wrong, they are guilty and owe for the wrong but also they
should be penalized and the state is not the one to benefit from the penalty.
The wrongful should be penalized. The aggrieved should receive payment for such.
And you've itemized it in the above. The penalty is for listed damages, which consists of "wrong and guilty", paid to the aggrieved.
This form of penalty predates the USA IIRC, maybe Biblical, not sure. I'm not talking
the moon, it could be one fixed formula for all cases. No surprises, go to court and lose,
it's cost plus.
Fine; go to court and lose, they pay damages AND court costs.
Again, no one can formulize pain, as it is an extremely personal accounting.
The Biblical "eye for an eye" may have meant an actual eye then, I don't know. Today, we account for the loss of potential earnings due to the actual loss of an eye; attempting to account for the oowies in the loss of an eye is incalculable, thus stoopit.
-
OK, so you are saying they pay damages which go beyond the actual costs?
If you are saying that we are saying the same thing.
-
OK, so you are saying they pay damages which go beyond the actual costs?
If you are saying that we are saying the same thing.
Court costs and actual, itemized damages.
We are not saying the same thing.
Again, one cannot reimburse another, materially, for psychic pain; it is an unquantifiable ... thing ... from one person to another, and a flat formula leaves one person reimbursed beyond reason and as to another ... no amount of money could suffice. This is beyond the purview of human courts and, as you have seen, the reason for unjustifiable amounts of money.
-
Oh noes! We disagree.
::facepalm::
It's OK, we're talking about a problem that could have been resolved
in the idealized world where we once lived. Today we're simple fodder
for the progressive machine where reason and logic in the public arena
are no more.
-
"Today we're simple fodder for the progressive machine where reason and logic in the public arena are no more."
Break the hold the trial lawyers have on politicians first, then maybe we can talk about returning to a sane world.
-
Oh noes! We disagree.
::facepalm::
It's OK, we're talking about a problem that could have been resolved
in the idealized world where we once lived. Today we're simple fodder
for the progressive machine where reason and logic in the public arena
are no more.
Oh yez! We do. ;D
And yes, we are. >:(
-
Loser pays. Really all that's needed.
-
My daughter was watching Judge Judy one afternoon recently and told me the plaintiff was asking for actual damages and for "emotional pain". Judge Judy didn't give it to her of course.
People want to be compensated for life's inconveniences and hardships.
I heard the other day Dave Duerson's family is suing the NFL for failing to warn players and the public about the dangers of getting hit in the head while playing football. As far as I can tell people are now aware of this issue and still football continues...
-
My daughter was watching Judge Judy one afternoon recently and told me the plaintiff was asking for actual damages and for "emotional pain". Judge Judy didn't give it to her of course.
People want to be compensated for life's inconveniences and hardships.
I heard the other day Dave Duerson's family is suing the NFL for failing to warn players and the public about the dangers of getting hit in the head while playing football. As far as I can tell people are now aware of this issue and still football continues...
Rush Limbaugh warns that football will be banned sometime in the near future; it'll start with high school and work it's way up to the NFL. "Don't. doubt me."
-
My daughter was watching Judge Judy one afternoon recently and told me the plaintiff was asking for actual damages and for "emotional pain". Judge Judy didn't give it to her of course.
People want to be compensated for life's inconveniences and hardships.
I heard the other day Dave Duerson's family is suing the NFL for failing to warn players and the public about the dangers of getting hit in the head while playing football. As far as I can tell people are now aware of this issue and still football continues...
Rush Limbaugh warns that football will be banned sometime in the near future; it'll start with high school and work it's way up to the NFL. "Don't. doubt me."
Troy Aikman said the the same thing, due to all the concusion issues.