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

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

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

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?

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.

"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.

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

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.

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)

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.