The problem, RTS, is that you would like to throw out the baby with the bath water. Tort reform advocates propose "caps" on jury awards. I can cite you a heck of lot more examples of innocent people horrendously disfigured or killed by the pure and unadulterated recklessness of businesses, to whom $250,000 in caps would not fill their left pinky in how their life has been altered.

 

Again, the most frequent Plaintiffs are small businesses. The SBA never tells you that. And your statement that the "costs" to the US economy from lawsuits causes our insurances rates to go up is simply patently false.

 

Incidentally, the woman in the McDonald's coffee cup lawsuit simply asked McDonald's, without a lawyer, to pay her $450 ER bill for the 3rd degree burn she suffered from the coffee, which was almost twice as hot as the industry standard. McDonald's arrogantly refused. Bad business decision. She found a trial lawyer and he stuck it up and broke it off in their hinder, and lawyers are going to keep doing that until businesses decide to return to the customer-is-first-attitudes we once had in this country, which incidentally is something Republicans are often fond of reminding us of.

We will have to agree to disagree. Again, regardless of how bad of a business decision McDonald's made, the award she was given is absurd. That sort of thing should not happen.

I have a brother-in-law that's a doctor, you should ask him what malpractice insurance costs if you think there is no correlation between lawsuits and healthcare or insurance.

We will have to agree to disagree. Again, regardless of how bad of a business decision McDonald's made, the award she was given is absurd. That sort of thing should not happen.

I have a brother-in-law that's a doctor, you should ask him what malpractice insurance costs if you think there is no correlation between lawsuits and healthcare or insurance.

 

I'm well aware of what it costs, and have stated the facts behind those costs clearly in the other thread. Ask your brother-in-law if he REALLY believes those costs will go down if caps are put in place. Hint: they haven't anywhere else its been passed.

Hearsay- is there any practical reform in your eyes to prevent frivolous suits from happening? Or is it a case of having to take the bad with the good?

^ Excellent question.

^ Excellent question.

Indeed!

Hearsay- is there any practical reform in your eyes to prevent frivolous suits from happening? Or is it a case of having to take the bad with the good?

 

That is a fair question, but the answer is "no," or better yet, "I don't know." I don't believe that there are "too many" frivolous lawsuits, I believe that the general public grabs onto a news story and runs with it. There are hundreds of examples, throughout history, of cases that were filed that appeared to be frivolous at first blush, but turned out to benefit everyone. What is "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't want any one magistrate, king, sheriff, or politician telling me what that is. That is what the peerage, or jury system, was designed to combat. Anything short of that restricts access for everyone to the courts.

 

There should and could be stronger enforcement of Rule 11. We also could attact more and better judges by politicizing them less and making the position more attractive to private sector lawyers. The fact of the matter is that noone competent wants judgeships these days.

aol.com this morning (8-30) had a story of a man who was injured when breaking into someones home and wants $120,000 for injuries suffered during the robbery.

That is a fair question, but the answer is "no," or better yet, "I don't know." I don't believe that there are "too many" frivolous lawsuits, I believe that the general public grabs onto a news story and runs with it. There are hundreds of examples, throughout history, of cases that were filed that appeared to be frivolous at first blush, but turned out to benefit everyone. What is "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't want any one magistrate, king, sheriff, or politician telling me what that is. That is what the peerage, or jury system, was designed to combat. Anything short of that restricts access for everyone to the courts.

 

There should and could be stronger enforcement of Rule 11. We also could attact more and better judges by politicizing them less and making the position more attractive to private sector lawyers. The fact of the matter is that noone competent wants judgeships these days.

Agreed. The lawsuits that we hear about sucks.However, how do we fix it? Let's face it, a cap on financial rewards from a case is wrong for the same reasons that a cap on executive pay is wrong. Or we could appoint a Lawsuit Czar, and that is the last thing that we want.

 

What's Rule 11?

I agree with hearsay on this one. I am not necessarily for caps, but I am interested in hearsay's take on plaintiff's paying for the defendant's attorney fees if the plaintiff loses or his/her case is thrown out. Is that enough to stop the apparent "rolling of the dice" that many of these plaintiffs and trial lawyers of the plaintiff's seem very willing to take when they have very little to lose other than their time. I think that a couple of states adopted "loser pays" rules, but not sure how it worked out or if it deterred some of these lawsuits from happening?

What's Rule 11?

 

Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

 

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

 

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

 

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

 

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

 

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

 

 

The rule also provides for the form and type of sanctions. It has been adopted almost verbatim in the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. See below.

 

Rule 11

I agree with hearsay on this one. I am not necessarily for caps, but I am interested in hearsay's take on plaintiff's paying for the defendant's attorney fees if the plaintiff loses or his/her case is thrown out. Is that enough to stop the apparent "rolling of the dice" that many of these plaintiffs and trial lawyers of the plaintiff's seem very willing to take when they have very little to lose other than their time. I think that a couple of states adopted "loser pays" rules, but not sure how it worked out or if it deterred some of these lawsuits from happening?

 

This was what I was talking about in the other thread. I would imagine lawyers wouldn't be for it and I don't blame them but I think it's got it's points. I also think maybe a "you only pay the lawyer a small percentage unless they win" might stop some of the frivolous lawsuits too. It's tough. I think lawyers should be paid because they have worked very hard to get through a lot of school and have bills for all the loans but some of the suits are out of control.

I am opposed to any legislation that proposes to regulate or limit the fees a lawyer can charge in a contract. This has nothing to do with being a lawyer - it has to do with being conservative. A client fee contract is a contract, and just as you would oppose being limited by the government on what you could contract for a car, to fix a toilet, or sell a loaf of bread, I oppose regulation of what a lawyer and his client agree to for the services the lawyer renders the client.

 

The "loser pays" argument is interesting. I would be willing to look at that, IF, and only IF, the insurance industry considers making that rule mutual - i.e., if you make a claim and the insurance company denies it, and you are given even $1 by way of settlement or verdict, that the insurance company pays all of the plaintiff's attorney fees. Fair, isn't it? After all, this is a two-way street, isn't it? I can give you as many, or more, wrongful insurance denials as you can so-called "frivolous" filings. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? And that would eliminate these pesky contingent fees?

 

Somehow, I don't think the insurance folks will come to the table on that one.

I am opposed to any legislation that proposes to regulate or limit the fees a lawyer can charge in a contract. This has nothing to do with being a lawyer - it has to do with being conservative. A client fee contract is a contract, and just as you would oppose being limited by the government on what you could contract for a car, to fix a toilet, or sell a loaf of bread, I oppose regulation of what a lawyer and his client agree to for the services the lawyer renders the client.

 

The "loser pays" argument is interesting. I would be willing to look at that, IF, and only IF, the insurance industry considers making that rule mutual - i.e., if you make a claim and the insurance company denies it, and you are given even $1 by way of settlement or verdict, that the insurance company pays all of the plaintiff's attorney fees. Fair, isn't it? After all, this is a two-way street, isn't it? I can give you as many, or more, wrongful insurance denials as you can so-called "frivolous" filings. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? And that would eliminate these pesky contingent fees?

 

Somehow, I don't think the insurance folks will come to the table on that one.

 

I completely agree with you about the insurance companies operating as a two-way street in the case you outline. That would make them think twice about things as it would trial lawyers/plaintiffs.