Call 911 for help - and get sued - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Marcus1124 · #61 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008

Quote:

Scribbler1
That's the way it normally works. On-the-job injuries are paid by the employer. Failing that, they can get workman's compensation.

These days, however, scumbags like her just see any excuse to get rich at somebody else's expense. If she's looking to get rich and retire early, I'm all for giving her the SECOND part...unemployment.

And let's not forget that behind every overreaching plaintiff, is a despicable trial lawyer!

Quote:

Traveler
So we have laws prohibitting lawsuits against sitting politicians, armed services members on active duty, whisttleblowers reporting suspicious behavior and now one i guess for this? I guess John Edwards must be livid that the kid didn't die; otherwise he could have respsented the family and channeled the dead in a courtroom like he usually does.

Actually, Edwards didn't seem to care for representing the families of those whose children had actually DIED (he didn't channel dead babies, he channeled pre-birth memories of those that lived with complications). Isn't it interesting that the champion of the "victims" of "malpractice" didn't seem to care much about families who had lost their child....couldn't have anything to do with the fact that on average Juries award LESS money to plaintiffs (and therfore LESS contingency fees to plaintiff's lawyers) for wrongfull DEATH of an infant than for infants who ended up handicapped or impaired.

Quote:

Scribbler1
On the surface, that's a good and fair idea. The problem is we have some gray areas here.

Just because somebody loses a lawsuit doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. And if it's a suit against an entity with deep pockets, such as a corporation, would you think it fair that better and more expensive lawyering on the part of the defendant should be paid for by the loser?

I believe SOME cases can be handled that way, but not nearly all of them, and I'd hate to see some poor middle-class Joe bear the cost of some lawyer who charges a few million to win the case.

How about this.
1. While not automatic, as part of a finding in favor of a defendant, JURIES should have the discretion, if they find the cause of action on the plaintiff's part so egregious or onerous to not only find in favor of the defendant, but to find against the plaintiff and award the defendant any amount UP TO what the plaintiff spent on their legal defense (this would require lawyers who work on contingency to make a pro forma declaration of their hourly rate and the number of hours worked on a case).

This way juries would be left to distinguish between valid and acceptable causes of action, that they just happened to find for a variety of reasons for the defendant; and those which are so over the top and abusive that they should not go unpunished for having brought them.

2. Juries should not be any more limited than today in the assessment of punative damages against defendants. However, no plaintiff (or their attorney's) should have any claim on punative damages exceeding the amount of the compensatory damages. The difference should go to whatever jurisdiction the action was brought under.

For example. If you sue and get $100,000 in compensatory damages and the Jury also finds for $1,000,000 in punative damages, the plaintiff would receive only $200,000 in total (the $100,000 in compensatory damages plus a share of the punative damages equal to, but not exceeding the compensatory). The municipal, state, or federal government with jurisdication would receive the rest as general revenues.

This reduces the incentive to play the litigation lottery, while at the same time keeping the punative aspects of the system in place to discourage tortious behavoir.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode