Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"David Megginson" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
CFLav8r wrote:

We need less laws, but if we had just one more it should the "Common
Sense
Act".
The common sense act would be for those that sue when common sense
should
have dictated your actions/results.
Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a supermarket is not the fault of
the
supermarket,
it is the fault of the individual for not paying attention to where they
were walking.

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a lesser
extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this in
Canada); and

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.


The second change could be huge. For example, if BigCorp does something
that injures a person, the jury might decide to award the person 1.5M for
pain and suffering, but then add on 50M punitive damages to teach BigCorp
a
lesson. There is no reason that the plaintiff should get that 50M, since
it
is effectively a fine -- if it goes to the taxpayers (like any other fine
would), then there is less to tempt people to spurious lawsuits.

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

So what? Punitive damages are not a part of the "make a victim whole"
payment. They're added "on top" of that as a demotivator for similar
activities in the future.

It's an interesting idea, and it might cause fewer people to view the legal
system as a lottery.

- Andrew

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
... snip ...

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.



Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
criminal law is a "bad" situation...

In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
large part because of a "criminal" action.

"Icebound" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
... snip ...

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.



Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
criminal law is a "bad" situation...

In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
large part because of a "criminal" action.

And, hence, our idiotic, out of control tort system.

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.
Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior. Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.

Yup!

Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior.

Not necessarily.

Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

Why would that be "sensible"? I've heard two or three people claim it, but
no one has substantiated it.

A case could be made that that would breed the same "lining up at the
through".

If you wreck my car, and I have to take off days from work to get it, and
myself, fixed how would you determine "actual damages"?

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding
"negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim
Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to
assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

Where did I say a dollar amount?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

Mark opined

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

If you really want punitive damages, donate them to charity. A charity that acts
to reduce what ever "caused" the tort. Snell and AOPA air safety are good
examples.

What ever you do, do not let governments get their hands on the monies.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX