If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
Jim B wrote:
Most civil lawsuits are settled between the parties without going to trial. This method is often used by the suing parties lawyers as a method of frightening the defendant into paying the suing party huge sums of money to avoid an actual trial. It's a tactic. Often the costs of defending such a lawsuit, if you take it all the way through a trial, will exceed the requested pre-trial amount the suing party asks for settling. A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses. Jim I'm not sure a "looser" should have to pay, the the loser certainly should! :-) Matt |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
Jose wrote:
A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses. First, it's "loser". If you're any looser with your spelling, people will brand you a loser. Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by small-resource folks against larger companies, who are more likely to win at trial simply through outspending on lawyers. That's also a common tactic - drown the assaulting party in their own legal fees until they run out of time and money, even before the trial starts. "Loser pays" doesn't address this, and in fact exacerbates the problem. This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry. Jose Tax the earnings of all laywers by say 1% and form a fund to support lawsuits by those who otherwise can't afford it. Kind of like an EPA superfund. I haven't thought this through extensively, but I think this could be a way to mitigate the legitimate concern you raise, yet still have a loser pays system that minimizes some of the present abuse. Doesn't many parts of Europe already have a loser pays system? I think they are precedents that show such a system can work and still allow the little guy to get satisfaction when warranted. Matt |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
Larry Dighera wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote in om: I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society. They are the worst sort of scum. Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal labyrinth; that is as it should be. It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people, are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at who we put in the highest office of the land. Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the problem. Numerous frivolous suits and huge class action suits are also part of the problem. They can cause companies to settle when they shouldn't even before a case goes to trial. So, lawyers cause huge problems even before a jury is ever selected. Matt |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote in om: I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society. They are the worst sort of scum. Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal labyrinth; that is as it should be. It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people, are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at who we put in the highest office of the land. Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the problem. So you agree that juries are often too emotional to be rational? Numerous frivolous suits What constitutes a frivolous suit? and huge class action suits are also part of the problem. Are you suggesting that class action suits should be outlawed? They can cause companies to settle when they shouldn't even before a case goes to trial. We all have to make choices. So, lawyers cause huge problems even before a jury is ever selected. Matt Would you prefer that attorneys NOT represent their clients? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
Yes, they will sue the flight instructor, but he probably had very limited
liability coverage compared to the relatively deep pockets of the product liability insurance for Cirrus. Think about the relative amounts for lost income and wages they can claim in such a lawsuit against Cirrus. Even if Cirrus "wins", or it never goes to trial, it is still going to cost them millions. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
"Jose" wrote in message ... Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by small-resource folks against larger companies, who are more likely to win at trial simply through outspending on lawyers. That's also a common tactic - drown the assaulting party in their own legal fees until they run out of time and money, even before the trial starts. "Loser pays" doesn't address this, and in fact exacerbates the problem. This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry. No it doesn't. Small fry with legitimate cases pay their lawyers out of their winnings. A loser pays system has no downside. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote in om: I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society. They are the worst sort of scum. Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal labyrinth; that is as it should be. It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people, are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at who we put in the highest office of the land. Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the problem. So you agree that juries are often too emotional to be rational? Yes, having sat on a jury I would say that often they are. Not always, but often. Numerous frivolous suits What constitutes a frivolous suit? One not based on fact. The breast implant suit is a very visible example. and huge class action suits are also part of the problem. Are you suggesting that class action suits should be outlawed? No, but the law firm that files the class action should be liable for all suit related costs of the defendant should the class action be either lost or thrown out by a judge. They can cause companies to settle when they shouldn't even before a case goes to trial. We all have to make choices. And this is a choice that makes lawyers rich at the expense of all of us who buy anything. So, lawyers cause huge problems even before a jury is ever selected. Matt Would you prefer that attorneys NOT represent their clients? No, I simply prefer that attorney's be liable for the defendants legal costs when they lose. Matt |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 10:22:29 -0600, "Jim B"
wrote: A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses. Most frivolous litigants have no assets and you would never collect in a loser pays system. What we need is a 'loser's lawyer pays' system. Don Virginia - the only State with a flag rated "R" for partial nudity and graphic violence. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
Matt Whiting wrote in
: Larry Dighera wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:14:17 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: On 3 Mar 2007 06:49:19 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote in om: I DO despise the attorneys who encourage this type of action, knowing full well that it's bogus, frivolous, and harmful to our society. They are the worst sort of scum. Attorneys are hired to represent their client's views. They are officers of the court who assist their clients in navigating the legal labyrinth; that is as it should be. It is the juries upon whom scorn should be heaped. We, the people, are not competent to make such rational judgments, after all look at who we put in the highest office of the land. Sorry, I don't buy it. Unfair awards are just a small part of the problem. So you agree that juries are often too emotional to be rational? Yes, having sat on a jury I would say that often they are. Not always, but often. Numerous frivolous suits What constitutes a frivolous suit? One not based on fact. The breast implant suit is a very visible example. and huge class action suits are also part of the problem. Are you suggesting that class action suits should be outlawed? No, but the law firm that files the class action should be liable for all suit related costs of the defendant should the class action be either lost or thrown out by a judge. They can cause companies to settle when they shouldn't even before a case goes to trial. We all have to make choices. And this is a choice that makes lawyers rich at the expense of all of us who buy anything. So, lawyers cause huge problems even before a jury is ever selected. Matt Would you prefer that attorneys NOT represent their clients? No, I simply prefer that attorney's be liable for the defendants legal costs when they lose. Matt It's not just that they can get emotional, there is also the attitude by many on a jury that "It is only the insurance company's money". Many years ago, I was on a civil jury that involved an injury to a passenger on a commuter flight. IIRC, the aircraft was a Beech 99. The aircraft hit severe turbulence, and one passenger, who had removed her seatbelt, was badly injured. None of the other passengers, all of whom had heeded the pilots announcement to ensure their seatbelts were fastened, were not hurt. The facts, as presented to us, were that the injured lady was very badly overweight and needed a seatbelt extender. She first refused to wear it and only did so when the pilot said he would call the police and have her removed from the aircraft. She then agreed to wear it and put it on. Seven other passengers all testified that this lady removed her seatbelt during the take-off roll and was bragging to them that "you don't have to wear a seatbelt on an airplane." Four passengers even pleaded with her to put it back on when the pilot announced that there was turbulence ahead. They said her response was "The pilots just like to order us around. You don't need to wear a seatbelt in an airplane." When the trial was over and we went back to the jury room to deliberate, we all agreed that this lady was injured and that her medical bills were reasonable. However, I refused to award her any money whatsoever as I felt she was 100% at fault. The first vote was 5-1 (only 6 people on a civil jury in New York at this time) in favor of giving her the amount requested (approximately $600,000, of which $450,000 was for pain and suffering). When I explained why I was opposed to giving her a penny, two other jurors immediately agreed with me. The jury forelady then told us we were extremely selfish as this lady had been badly injured and deserved some compensation. The forelady then added "It's only the insurance companies money. It won't cost the airline anything." We ended up a hung jury (3 award nothing, 2 award medical bills but no pain and suffering, and 1 award everything). I have no idea what the eventual disposition of the case was. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:49:30 -0500, Don Tabor wrote
in : What we need is a 'loser's lawyer pays' system. Unfortunately, with Congress and the Judicial Department primarily populated by Lawyers, that's not likely. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SR22 crash involved racecar driver | Darkwing | Piloting | 24 | November 4th 06 02:04 AM |
insane IMC | Napoleon Dynamite | Piloting | 20 | August 4th 06 05:32 PM |
SR22 crash in Henderson Executive | [email protected] | Piloting | 2 | July 27th 05 02:30 AM |
Bill Gates as he presents the Windows Media Player system crash | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | January 11th 05 09:06 PM |
The insane spitfire video clip | gatt | General Aviation | 30 | November 4th 03 06:43 PM |