HOT COFFEE: Wake up to what's being done to YOUR rights

[Werewolf]

Define "loser." This issue with tort reform isn't that the plaintiff isn't owed damages, in most cases, so the plaintiff is nearly always the victor and the defendant the loser. The issue is with the judgements being sought.

Example:

If I slip and fall on your property, and show you are negligent (say you had a water leak), I am owed damages. Let's say I have no permanent injuries, but I have a 3,000 dollar medical bill.

You or your insurer offers 10,000 to cover the generals and specials. I balk and sure for an absurd 20 million, requesting generals, specials, and punitive. The court awards me your original 10,000 offer. I am still the "winner" of the court case, as it found you negligent and I am awarded damages. You still pay court costs because you are the loser. Is that fair, or should I be forced to pay due to my being litigious?

What if the court awards 18 million, or 12,000, some in-between amount (which is most likely)? Who is the winner and loser now?

Using your scenario if you chose not to accept the more than generous offer of $10k even though medical expenses were onlyh $3k and sued for $20m and lost - you get to pay the court costs and lawyer fees. Sucks to be you. $20M, $10M or even $100K is total BS when using your example med expenses were just $3K. Toss in a little more for the pain you had to suffer while healing, maybe lost income etc and that covers your expenses and damages. Trying to get rich? That's just wrong.

The number of possible scenarios is endless.

That said it seems to me that in civil actions we've lost sight of what real damages are and what real punitive awards should be. Plaintiffs and Lawyers both suffer from deep pockets syndrome. Suck as much money out of the pockets of those who have it whether justified or not, whether justice is served or not. And considering lawyers and their training I'm gonna go ahead and place most of the blame for the current system being what it is directly on the heads of lawyers.

If the loser pays all costs, meaning all lawyer fees and court costs the BS suits brought for $20M because some Darwin Award candidate can't figure out not to store gasoline in a gas container next to a gas hot water heater simply go away. Only suits with merit and a reasonable chance of victory will be brought to trial.

One thing's for sure though. Under a loser pays all system like most of the world has there'd be a whole lot less lawyers in the USA than there are now (US has the highest ratio of lawyers per capita in the world).

Not sure that'd be a bad thing.

 

[Istandalone]

Too many lawyers, not enough valid Torts to go around, thus the problem!

 

[Harley1953]

Using your scenario if you chose not to accept the more than generous offer of $10k even though medical expenses were onlyh $3k and sued for $20m and lost - you get to pay the court costs and lawyer fees. Sucks to be you. $20M, $10M or even $100K is total BS when using your example med expenses were just $3K. Toss in a little more for the pain you had to suffer while healing, maybe lost income etc and that covers your expenses and damages. Trying to get rich? That's just wrong.

The number of possible scenarios is endless.

That said it seems to me that in civil actions we've lost sight of what real damages are and what real punitive awards should be. Plaintiffs and Lawyers both suffer from deep pockets syndrome. Suck as much money out of the pockets of those who have it whether justified or not, whether justice is served or not. And considering lawyers and their training I'm gonna go ahead and place most of the blame for the current system being what it is directly on the heads of lawyers.

If the loser pays all costs, meaning all lawyer fees and court costs the BS suits brought for $20M because some Darwin Award candidate can't figure out not to store gasoline in a gas container next to a gas hot water heater simply go away. Only suits with merit and a reasonable chance of victory will be brought to trial.

One thing's for sure though. Under a loser pays all system like most of the world has there'd be a whole lot less lawyers in the USA than there are now (US has the highest ratio of lawyers per capita in the world).

Not sure that'd be a bad thing.

When MANY (not saying all) attorneys have to manufacture business by "ambulance chasing", no pay if no recovery, and all the other methods of bringing frivolous lawsuits in the courtrooms, SOMETHING has to give..

REAL Examples:

Woman runs a red light and is broad sided at an intersection. SHE is givin a ticket at the scene by OKC police. Months later she brings lawsuit against the driver that hit her. After she lost in court, why should the individual that she sued not be compensated for his time, lost wages, attorneys fees and stress? Has been many years, but my father sat on this jury and was amazed that the suit even got to a court room. His jury deliberated a VERY short time and wanted to award compensation to the defendant but was not allowed....

 

[inactive]

In scenario one you are the loser. They offered $10k and you said no. You sued for $20M and got $10k. Sounds like to me you lost.

Except that I was awarded $10k in a legal judgement. How did I lose? The tortfeasor has a judgement against them, and I have a judgement in my favor.

It's a bit of an extreme example I know, but I want to point out that it is difficult to define winning and losing and determining how to split legal costs. Especially since in most all cases I have seen (and I am in auto insurance claims), the amount awarded is in the middle.

But in all reality, if we believe the causes of action and judgements are inappropriate, then our problem lies with the juries of our peers, not with the legal system. We (the People) are the ones awarding these amounts of money. I am not arguing for or against tort reform, but just trying to discuss some of the nuances related to the issue.

 

[Twmaster]

Too many people looking for a payday. I think this is in part fueled by ethically challenged lawyers pushing ads aimed at 'victims' of supposed wrongs.

You know it's a cold day when you see a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.

 

[Billybob]

Is this a "frivolous lawsuit"

Court Rules for Cleaners In $54 Million Pants Suit

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 26, 2007

The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out yesterday what he's going to get. Nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html

 

[Twmaster]

Which is exactly what he deserved....

 

[poopgiggle]

It would discourage frivolous law suits and only those with merit would be brought. Suits brought simply because it is cheaper to pay than go to trial would probably simply vanish. If that were to be the case everyone wins. The insurance company, society, etc. The only losers would be those folks who sue at the drop of a hat over every silly slight imaginable.

So you can't possibly imagine how such a law would discourage people from bringing legitimate suits?

 

[Billybob]

Which is exactly what he deserved....

I agree, he also lost his job, which I also agree with. Sanction or disbar attorneys who bring "frivolous lawsuits" and much of the issue would be solved.

 

[Harley1953]

Is this a "frivolous lawsuit"

Court Rules for Cleaners In $54 Million Pants Suit

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 26, 2007

The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out yesterday what he's going to get. Nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html

And THIS is the perfect example of the system gone wrong.... As BillyBob pointed out later, the judge lost his job. Punishment enough --- Hell no. The owners of the cleaners in this case should have been awarded punitive damages for their "pain and suffering" of the stress. Plaintiff Judge should be sanctioned and disbarred. Judges sitting on these cases should also show a bit of backbone and throw these types of deals out before they ever come before the bench...