On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 at 19:02:47 in message
, Philip Sondericker
wrote:
Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?

Perhaps it is not so much a matter of defining frivolous, as defining
how much responsibility individuals are expected to take for their own
protection. The reasonable man should assume that the pavement (sorry
sidewalk) may have badly aligned slabs. If he trips he should have kept
a better look out. Individuals should accept responsibility for
undertaking somewhat hazardous activities.

Should G.A. be accepted as a personal risk for example? We are entitled
to believe that public transport is responsible for our safety. If we
are passengers we should not be able to sue the private pilot unless we
have been deceived although a third party causing an accident would be
different.

Of course that approach might be bad for G.A. Anyway?

(UK TV has nightly adverts from legal firms asking if you have had an
accident and offering no-win no-fee terms. We seem to have inherited all
your litigation bad habits over here in the UK .)

;-)
--
David CL Francis