Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:

Unfair awards are just a small part of the
problem. Numerous frivolous suits and huge class action suits are also
part of the problem.

But the latter isn't independent of the former. If jury awards weren't
the lottery prizes they've become (with far better odds, mind you),
there'd be fewer frivolous legal actions.

But jury awards aren't the only issue, I agree. There needs to be more of
a downside to filing frivolous actions. Unfortunately, "loser pays" isn't
enough because juries (as indicated in Marty Shapiro's posting) often make
undeserving claimants "winners".

- Andrew

BDS wrote:
"Denny" wrote

Stephan, you have a point... The blame does fall onto the shoulder of
the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the congress which has
failed to keep the playing field level...

At the end of the day the blame falls on the plaintiffs, who are willing to
ignore everything they know about what is fair and just, all in the pursuit
of a fast buck.

Lawyers can do nothing without clients.

Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical
malpractice is the patients' fault, right?

Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical
malpractice is the patients' fault, right?

Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?

No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.

We are talking about frivilous lawsuits, and my point is that they are
brought by plaintiffs, not lawyers. Trying to put the primary blame on
lawyers, the courts, or judges is along the same lines of dodging personal
responsibility that helped to get us into this mess in the first place.
There would be no frivilous lawsuits without plaintiffs who are willing to
lie and cheat - the plaintiff in every case is in the best position to know
whether they are being truthfull and honest, and if they are placing blame
where it belongs.

What you seem to be saying is that it is OK to sell your soul to win at
something that is morally wrong to be involved in in the first place, as
long as you didn't set up the rules. You seem to feel that if someone else
made the rules for the game then it's OK for you to ignore everything you
should know about fairness and moral behavior just to get some easy money.

I don't happen to feel that way.

BDS

BDS wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical
malpractice is the patients' fault, right?

Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?

No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.

They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.


We are talking about frivilous lawsuits, and my point is that they are
brought by plaintiffs, not lawyers. Trying to put the primary blame on
lawyers, the courts, or judges is along the same lines of dodging personal
responsibility that helped to get us into this mess in the first place.
There would be no frivilous lawsuits without plaintiffs who are willing to
lie and cheat - the plaintiff in every case is in the best position to know
whether they are being truthfull and honest, and if they are placing blame
where it belongs.

If the plaintiff files the lawsuit themselves, then no lawyer is
involved and I agree with your original assertion. However, virtually
all lawsuits are actually filed by a lawyer and your claim is ridiculous
as the lawyer is intimately involved in the frivolous suit. Even worse,
it is usually the lawyer that tries to "blackmail" the defendant into
settling out of court, even though they aren't liable, just to save the
cost of defending themselves. This behavior completely rests on the
lawyers contrary to your claim. This is legalized extortion pure and
simple.


What you seem to be saying is that it is OK to sell your soul to win at
something that is morally wrong to be involved in in the first place, as
long as you didn't set up the rules. You seem to feel that if someone else
made the rules for the game then it's OK for you to ignore everything you
should know about fairness and moral behavior just to get some easy money.

I'm not sure what you are saying above so I have no idea if I agree with
it or not, but I'm guessing not. I never suggested it was OK to be
involved in something morally wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous
idea? Oh, the same place you got the idea that lawyers are just
innocent bystanders in frivolous suits...


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote

They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.

No, they are not identical. This is a stawman that is designed to sidestep
the issue at hand.

If the plaintiff files the lawsuit themselves, then no lawyer is
involved and I agree with your original assertion.

I said originally that the lawyer was partially to blame, but that the
primary blame belongs with the plaintiff. A plaintiff can stop a lawsuit
any time he or she pleases, or can choose not to start one in the first
place, and the lawyer is obliged to follow the client's wishes.

all lawsuits are actually filed by a lawyer and your claim is ridiculous
as the lawyer is intimately involved in the frivolous suit. Even worse,
it is usually the lawyer that tries to "blackmail" the defendant into
settling out of court, even though they aren't liable, just to save the
cost of defending themselves. This behavior completely rests on the
lawyers contrary to your claim. This is legalized extortion pure and
simple.

The final decision to proceed or settle always lies with the plaintiff, not
the lawyer. The final decision on what amount to settle for always lies
with the plaintiff, not the lawyer.

it or not, but I'm guessing not. I never suggested it was OK to be
involved in something morally wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous
idea? Oh, the same place you got the idea that lawyers are just
innocent bystanders in frivolous suits...

You place all the blame on the lawyers, courts, and judges. It seems that
you believe that the plaintiff is the innocent bystander when in fact the
entire suit could not even start without them.

A few years ago a construction van stopped suddenly at an intersection and
his unsecured ladder flew off the top of his truck into traffic. My wife
hit it going highway speeds as it flew out in front of her. We could have
claimed all sorts of bogus injuries just like the scumbags who want to make
a quick buck but only asked them to pay for the damage done to one tire.
The guy was flabbergasted. We chose not to participate in the bull**** and
guess what, because of that there was no lawsuit. Some time later my wife
nudged another vehicle at a stop light and barely marked the plastic trim on
the two vehicles. Guess what, the other woman sued claiming a dozen
injuries from the 5 mph accident, lost work time, etc., etc., etc., and the
insurance company paid her 5 figures. Do you think that would have happened
without her participation? Give me a break.

People like to blame lawyers for all the bad things that happen with regard
to frivilous lawsuits, and believe me, I have no particular love for them.
However, the very same people who say that the system is messed up and do
all the complaining are the same ones who will sign on to a bogus suit if
they think they can cash in on it.

What it boils down to is that their moral compass is for sale at the right
price.

BDS

BDS wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical
malpractice is the patients' fault, right?

Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?

No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.

They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.


We are talking about frivilous lawsuits, and my point is that they are
brought by plaintiffs, not lawyers. Trying to put the primary blame on
lawyers, the courts, or judges is along the same lines of dodging personal
responsibility that helped to get us into this mess in the first place.
There would be no frivilous lawsuits without plaintiffs who are willing to
lie and cheat - the plaintiff in every case is in the best position to know
whether they are being truthfull and honest, and if they are placing blame
where it belongs.

If the plaintiff files the lawsuit themselves, then no lawyer is
involved and I agree with your original assertion. However, virtually
all lawsuits are actually filed by a lawyer and your claim is ridiculous
as the lawyer is intimately involved in the frivolous suit. Even worse,
it is usually the lawyer that tries to "blackmail" the defendant into
settling out of court, even though they aren't liable, just to save the
cost of defending themselves. This behavior completely rests on the
lawyers contrary to your claim. This is legalized extortion pure and
simple.


What you seem to be saying is that it is OK to sell your soul to win at
something that is morally wrong to be involved in in the first place, as
long as you didn't set up the rules. You seem to feel that if someone else
made the rules for the game then it's OK for you to ignore everything you
should know about fairness and moral behavior just to get some easy money.

I'm not sure what you are saying above so I have no idea if I agree with
it or not, but I'm guessing not. I never suggested it was OK to be
involved in something morally wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous
idea? Oh, the same place you got the idea that lawyers are just
innocent bystanders in frivolous suits...


Matt

provided, of course, that the obstacle database is
up to date and accurate.

I don't see what this has to do with an obstacle database. The
transponder on the obstacle will state where it is. That should be
sufficient (as long as it's not lying!)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Lawyers can do nothing without clients.
Doctors can do nothing without patients. I guess then that all medical malpractice is the patients' fault, right?
Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design the structure, right?

Without addressing the validity of the =use= of the analogy, I'll point
out that lawyers (and soldiers) are the only professions (I know of)
that do more business the more of them there are. (I suppose one could
force athletes to fit in there too.)

Consider why, and consider what they do (differently from all other
professions). Then reconsider the analogy.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bear,

S mode and TCAS do not solve the problem with fixed obstacle like a
cable or an antenna.


That's true. But only very special kinds of flying take you close
enough to those obstacles to be a factor that can't be handled by
normal established terrain avoidance gear like TAWS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

IIRC, the US is the only industrial nation that DOESN'T use "Loser Pays".

consider: We also don't have user fees,

And some do. Analogy fails.