"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Jose wrote:

A "loser pays"
legal policy would straighten this one out immediately

The problem with "loser pays" is that only the rich could afford to take
the risk of having to pay, so the less well off would be without fair
representation.

Jose

That is the usual response from the tort lobby.

Is it fair representation when anybody who has even a peripheral
involvement in an accident is financially responsible for the whole
thing?

Is it fair representation when a manufacturer or individual is pulled
into a legal action and has to hire lawyers to defend against someone
else's misuse of a product?

Is it fair that a lawyer can, with impunity, name uninvolved parties in
legal actions?

We truly need tort reform! How about making losing lawyers pay the costs
of defense against their predations?


Juries should have a minimum of three verdicts in a tort case.

A. In favor of the Plaintiff.
B. In favor of the Defendant.
C. This is so stupid that the lawyer that brought the case is suspended from
the Bar for X months/years.