Frivolous law suits

If lawyers could face a misdemeanor penalty, say one night in jail, for bringing a frivolous suit before a court, do you think it would decrease the instances of said lawsuits? Of course, getting their buddies on the bench to assess these penalties would be another matter.

 

I think if one has ever practiced law before the bench then it is a blatant confict of intrest to run for or except the postion of judge.

So you can interpolate where I stand on that.

 

I like the article I read the other day where this lawsuit lawyer was getting sued..... something about he had this female client and he was representing her, and he told her if they won the case, she would get thousands of dollars, so she quit her job at mcdonalds or somewhere like that, and they ended up loosing, so she sued him for the money he said she was going to get...... funny, REALLY funny......

 

The government will never do anything to penalize frivilous lawsuits, because they are afraid that it will undermine the legal system and scare people away from filing legitimate lawsuits, if there is such a thing. What I do see happening is some sort of cap on settlement amount, which will keep away a lot of lawsuits too, not all of them, but the real hard core greedy people that won't go through all the trouble for $100 that they would for $1 million.

 

...the trial lawyers lobby is one of the most powerful in the nation. And politicians are, by and large, lawyers.

I like the loser pays system. Or at least the option of it. Right now, it's not an option and it shows. If the judge had the option of slapping the plaintiff of a bogus suit with the defendant's legal fees, less BS lawsuits would be filed.

But then again, people give hundreds of thousands of dollars to idiots who put hot coffee between their legs, remove the lid, and burn themselves. Given that, I don't know if the system is salvagable or not. After all, today a jury is made up of the 12 stupidest people they can lay their hands on. Someone who can critically evaluate facts and render a decision will NEVER serve on a jury in this country. I know a guy who's an engineer with Boeing who's been called for jury duty three or four times. Every time, as soon as they hear the word "engineer" he's excused. Someone who's been trained to evaluate data is the last thing they want on a jury.

 

They do not need a lobby over 1/3 of the law maker are trial lawyers. Yet as you say they have one of the most active groups of lobbiest.

 

Zeb, you are wrong on all accounts. Courts are increasingly penalizing those who bring frivolous actions. I am now defending an attorney who represented a client in what the court found was a frivolous claim. the defendants are seeking $120K in attorneys fees. They will get some, but all of that.

Keep in mind that most cases that are lost are not necessarily "frivolous". What Mongo is talking about in Britain is where the loser, regardless of the merit of thier case or their defense, must pay the winner's attorneys' fees. Zeb, that system would actually ENCOURAGE me to take many cases that are not worth a lot of $, but are nonetheless very winnable. Such as a broken finger case in a car crash case involving a defendat who ran a red light. If this were Britain I'd take it. Here, probably not except to try for a quick settlement.

As for caps on pain and suffering. . . picture a 15 y/o plaintiff with 2d and 3d degree burns over most of their body being limited to $250 of P & S. Does that sound fair?

Rodger

 

Depends on the circumstances, which is why we have a legal system in the first place.... IF it were the plantiff's fault for the burns (he was playing with gas or something), then yes, $250 would not hurt my feelings NONE, people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, not think because they were idiots and playing with fire that they can sue the gas maker, or the lighter maker, or the match maker because they F'ed up their own lives......

 

in the case of the woman with the mcdonalds coffee, she burned herself because of her own stupidity, she should not have been allowed to sue mcdonalds, period. And if she would have known that she would only get $50 for hours and hours of legal stuff, then she never would have filed the suit.

 

http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-firesuit0710,0,3676882.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

ok mr. Rodger..... frivilous or not... I say it is, you can't sue a ford dealership because a ford van caught on fire, what did the dealership do, install a fire making machine to burn it on purpose??? another example of people trying to turn their misfortune into money.....

 

See, it just spun into another suit, taking up more court time. I say put the rascals in the slammer for a few days to teach them not to waste time on "McCases".

 

Not frivolous -- products liability law in almost all 50 states holds a seller liable for injuries caused by their products. Zeb, their are many reasons for this law that I can cite tomorrow, but I've got to run!!!!! Suffice it to say that manufacturers were able to slime out of liability for defective products for years and still are able in many circumstances. (Keep in mind that dealers/sellers can collect from the manufacturer in most circumstances.

And Yam849, it was not another suit, just a motion within a prior existing suit.

 

One issue that often gets left out in the McDonalds coffee case is that that McD's had been warned about their coffee temps. Apparently there was some PR crap going on in the town regarding who had the best and hottest cup of coffee. If the coffee were at the regulated temp then the woman would not have recieved the burns she did.

The problem I have with it is that just because she had burns doesn't necessarily mean she and her lawyers should get millions of dollars for the case. The settlements for pain and suffering are crazy. Alabama has some insane case histories for P & S settlements.

The one I love and watched on Court TV was the Killington VT skiing case. The skier hit a tree and ended of a pairaplegic. He and his other friends admitted they knew they were out of the clearly marked barriers and were doing something they knew was wrong but the jury still came back and said that Killington was 50% liable so they get nailed for a 5 million dollar decision. didn't matter that they have a 12 foot high sign discussion boundaries and safety and ski at your own risk... skiers that admit they knew of the sign and what they were doing.

Juries see pain and suffering then immediately key in on INSURANCE and BIG BUSINESS. The poor dumbass hurt himself so lets make him rich.

BTW, most judges have the right to throw out what they feel is frivolous lawsuits. Tenn. is actually fairly tough on this. Judges don't do it because guess what... they are lawyers too.

We need lawyers like Pants Ramano. He takes reasonable and legitimate cases when it comes to liability stuff. At least that is what he says... I wonder if we can trust him? LOL

 

my wife was sued about 19 years ago we spent two years in depos repeating the same stuff. seeing other cases with no merrit lost therefore worring about ours. Some lazy judge does at last really read the case and throws it out.

Why did it take two years.

I have worked in law firms as the computer geek and read jury charges most make no sense. They say things like forget what you learned in college only use the info provided in this case.

Like I spent all that time in grad school to have someone I would have kept out of my lab tell we what is going on.

ps depositions are not peer reviewed

 

i'm gonna sue yamaha for my crash. i'm gonna sue ccs, and wera for providing my dumb ass a venue to crash.

i say, bring on your lawsuit, but you better be right, cause the loser pays all the legal fees, and court costs.

 

That's what they all say. . . especially ME!

Rodger

 

Maybe not in that instance but remember when...

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=522&scid=96

"In 1977, Mark Dowie of Mother Jones Magazine, using documents in the Center files, published an article reporting the dangers of the [Pinto] fuel tank design, and cited internal Ford Motor Company documents that proved that Ford knew of the weakness in the fuel tank before the vehicle was placed on the market but that a cost/benefit study was done which suggested that it would be "cheaper" for Ford to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires in the first place. Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but that cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto."

 

The Wall Street Journal had an article on this when it happened. The author bought a dozen coffee makers at K Mart, ran them all, and measured the temp of the coffee they made. He claimed that 85% of them made coffee at the same temp as McDonalds. McDonalds had also done research to determine that 190F resulted in the best tasting coffee.

Another factor to consider is that dropping the temp from 190F to 160F wouldn't prevent burns. That's why your hot water tank is set to 120F: to prevent scalding burns. A 160F cup of coffee between her legs would have still burned her.

Most importantly, it's coffee! The stuff is supposed to be hot. It's not like that's a big secret that McDonalds kept from the public.

The woman should have gotten slapped in the head for being stupid and told to get the hell out of the courtroom. She shouldn't have gotten rich for being an idiot.

And comparing the Pinto case to 99% of the crap filed these days is a pretty sad joke. Yeah, the Pinto was defective. Score one for the good guys. Now on the other side of the fence, we have the aforementioned lawsuit. The dealer didn't cause the van to burn. We also have the one where the family of a state trooper is suing Ford because the Crown Vic he was in caught fire after it was rear-ended by someone doing 90mph as he sat on the side of the road or some crap like that. Another totally frivilous lawsuit. Then there is the fat pig who sued McDonalds for making her fat, rather than accepting responsibility for her actions. The list goes on and on.

 

fuck mcdonald's coffee. when i was a kid, their apple pies would sear the flesh right off of your skull. damn, another missed opportunity.