ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (07/21/85)
> (saved the best for last) > A man filed suit against a tavern for negligently serving him excessive > amounts of alcohol, leading to his arrest and humiliation after he stabbed > another man during an argument. > ---------- > Is there any justification for this sort of thing? Yes there is. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. The way one discovers whether the reason is on or off the wall is in the trial. For all our edification, you might try to follow the stories you mentioned and see what the result is of these silly suits.
harry@ucbarpa (07/24/85)
From: harry@ucbarpa (Harry I. Rubin) Subject: Re: Liability Lawsuits Getting Out of Hand In-Reply-To: <4035@alice.UUCP> References: <743@infopro.UUCP> In article <4035@alice.UUCP> ark writes: >> A man filed suit against a tavern for negligently serving him excessive >> amounts of alcohol, leading to his arrest and humiliation after he stabbed >> another man during an argument. >> Is there any justification for this sort of thing? > >Yes there is. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. The way one >discovers whether the reason is on or off the wall is in the trial. Yes, but these silly lawsuits have serious drawbacks: - the defendant must bear the burden in time and money of hiring a lawyer and preparing a defense. I imagine this can be a big problem. - the defendant is probably scared to death that the court will find against him/her. Even if it is very unlikely, it could happen. - it clogs the court system, slowing down or blocking its serious business. - personal opinion: I feel that it contributes to a moral (ethical?) breakdown in society. People bring lawsuits because they might get something out of it, not because they have suffered a real wrong. This encourages other people to think and act the same way: out for whatever they can get regardless of the rights and wrongs of means or ends. The law, the judicial system, becomes not a protector of the downtrodden, not the dispenser of justice, not a guide to acceptable behavior, but a tool to be used, even twisted, for what you can get out of it. On the other hand, it is nice to know that if I feel wronged and there is no other course to redress, I can sue the bastard(s).
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/24/85)
> > (saved the best for last) > > A man filed suit against a tavern for negligently serving him excessive > > amounts of alcohol, leading to his arrest and humiliation after he stabbed > > another man during an argument. > > ---------- > > Is there any justification for this sort of thing? > > Yes there is. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. The way one > discovers whether the reason is on or off the wall is in the trial. > For all our edification, you might try to follow the stories you > mentioned and see what the result is of these silly suits. But what's the justification for ALLOWING anyone to sue anyone for any reason? These people are ridiculous! I think there should be three possible verdicts in these cases: "suee guilty; pay up", "suee not guilty, no compensation" and "trial was incredible waste of time and money for all involved, suer pay suee and government large amounts of money." Then maybe people would think twice, and not be so quick to blame other people for their own stupidity. marie desjardins park
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (07/24/85)
In some cases "nuisance lawsuits" have indeed backfired on the instigator. However, I have no statistics; I wonder how often this occurs? If it were well known (and presumably true, but the former does not imply the latter, alas!) that a silly suit is likely to cost the plaintiff instead of (or much greater proportionally to) the defendent, perhaps there would be fewer. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland
scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) (07/25/85)
I realize this may generate some flames, and probably could never get implemented (it has to get past the lawyers first :-)), but how about this for a solution to the problem of frivolous lawsuits: In addition to giving the judge the power to fine people who bring such nonsense to the courtroom (which I think is already being done in some places), how about putting a cap on attorneys' fees for liability cases? At least then if one of these silly cases should make it to court, it'll prevent plaintiffs from asking for such ridiculous sums (i.e. 3 Million for stubbing your toe). As now stands, if an attorney gets, say, 10% of the settlement, it is in his/her interest to "go for the big bucks". What do YOU think? SJBerry
9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (The Rev. Peak) (07/25/85)
--> As now stands, if an
-->attorney gets, say, 10% of the settlement, it is in his/her
-->interest to "go for the big bucks".
-->
-->What do YOU think?
-->
--> SJBerry
-->
I think if I could find an attourney for 10% of the settlement I'd
sue the butt off anyone and everyone ! These sharks almost always want
one third to one half of contingency settlements !
"First we shoot all the lawyers !" <------------ who said that ?
Dave Peak
@ ihnp4!hotel!dxp
"All the net's a stage and all the men and women merely ham actors !"
- Rev Peak (apologies to Bill S.)wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) (07/26/85)
Another suggestion to cut down on litigation: How about having a separate determination of awards and penalties. In this way, if an individual is suing a corporation, there could be a large penalty against the corporation, but a smaller award to the plaintiff. The lawyers for the plaintiff can only be payed out of the reward, so this would cut down on legal fees. The extra cash can be put into a fund to be used to pay for cases where the penalty is smaller than the reward.
larryk@tektronix.UUCP (Larry Kohn) (07/26/85)
In article <565@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) writes: > >In addition to giving the judge the power to fine people >who bring such nonsense to the courtroom (which I think >is already being done in some places), how about putting >a cap on attorneys' fees for liability cases? > >What do YOU think? > Better yet, the judge should find the lawyer guilty of contempt of court and fine her/him double what the client's fine. After all, most people don't sue in court without a lawyer.
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (07/27/85)
> > (saved the best for last) > > A man filed suit against a tavern for negligently serving him excessive > > amounts of alcohol, leading to his arrest and humiliation after he stabbed > > another man during an argument. > > ---------- > > Is there any justification for this sort of thing? > > Yes there is. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. The way one > discovers whether the reason is on or off the wall is in the trial. The point is that trials cost tax money. No other civilized nation, or I supposed uncivilized ones, has as many lawsuits on as many trivial issues as the US. Most should never come to trial in the first place. However, that's an uphill fight. We also have more lawyers per capita than any other nation on earth and lawyers become judges and legislators-- the very people who can control civil court procedures. Just a small conflict of interest.
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/27/85)
> Another suggestion to cut down on litigation: > > How about having a separate determination of awards and penalties. > In this way, if an individual is suing a corporation, there could > be a large penalty against the corporation, but a smaller award to the > plaintiff. The lawyers for the plaintiff can only be payed out of the > reward, so this would cut down on legal fees. The extra cash can be > put into a fund to be used to pay for cases where the penalty is > smaller than the reward. > There's a pernicious assumption here, that it's WRONG for the plaintiffs' lawyer to receive substantial fees. Why? The system of allowing contingent fees (a percentage of the award) is what enables ordinary people to find decent counsel and bring suit against powerful corporations. The plaintiff's lawyer often has substantial out-of-pocket expenses, which are pure loss on cases that are lost; this imade up on the won cases. Read the four-part series on the asbestos cases in The_New_Yorker last month. If it hadn't been for the contingent-fee system, and for some brave and committed lawyers working with the first few bold plaintiffs, the evidence of this horrendous occupational-health disaster (and the cover-up) would never have been dug out. Nor do I understand the tone of some comments on malpractice suits. There are reasonable things to be said on all sides, but it gets quite stupid when someone argues from the attitude that doctors are noble, put-upon healers while plaintiffs are litigious complainers and lawyers are greedy ambulance-chasers. Come off it! (Not directed to the author of posting quoted above.) -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/27/85)
I think there should > be three possible verdicts in these cases: "suee guilty; > pay up", "suee not guilty, no compensation" and "trial was > incredible waste of time and money for all involved, suer pay > suee and government large amounts of money." > marie desjardins park Sure, there's already such a thing as distribution of court costs, and they can be assigned entirely to plaintiff. This does not compensate defendant for expenses and anxiety, but there's also such a thing as a countersuit. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/27/85)
> In some cases "nuisance lawsuits" have indeed backfired on the > instigator. However, I have no statistics; I wonder how often this > occurs? If it were well known (and presumably true, but the former > does not imply the latter, alas!) that a silly suit is likely to > cost the plaintiff instead of (or much greater proportionally to) > the defendent, perhaps there would be fewer. > -- > In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) Okay, but in the first place what makes you think there are many frivolous suits at all? Before statistics on what's effective in stopping frivolous suits, I would first want some statistics on how many firvolous suits there really are. All we've seen in this discussion is a lot of spotty anecdotal evidence. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/27/85)
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) Message-ID: <565@hou2g.UUCP> > ... how about this for a solution > to the problem of frivolous lawsuits: > > In addition to giving the judge the power to fine people > who bring such nonsense to the courtroom (which I think > is already being done in some places), how about putting > a cap on attorneys' fees for liability cases? At least then > if one of these silly cases should make it to court, it'll > prevent plaintiffs from asking for such ridiculous sums > (i.e. 3 Million for stubbing your toe). As now stands, if an > attorney gets, say, 10% of the settlement, it is in his/her > interest to "go for the big bucks". > > What do YOU think? > > SJBerry Contingent fees in liability cases are more often 30% or 40% than 10%. I mention this a factual background, not to say ``it's even worse than SJB thought'', since I don't think it's bad. The contingent fee system is what enables ordinary people to bring suit against rich & powerful corporations. And of course nobody gets $3 million for a stubbed toe. Yeah, I know, Scott was just exaggerating some, but the parameters are so far out of line that it's no longer a useful illustration. Three million would *not* be an excessive figure to compensate for asbestosis, lung cancer, early death. And that's a reasonable figure just from lost future earnings, computing present value at a reasonable rate or interest -- it says nothing yet about pain & suffering. Again, I refer you to the series on asbestosis in the_New_Yorker last month. Awards in the million range only came through quite recently. The first few plaintiffs had a hard time establishing their cases at all (due to a big cover-up), and then the awards stayed under $100,000 for a long time. That's not a reasonable ceiling, if you remember what it was for. Sure, a large figure for trivial injury is wrong. But do you think judges and juries are passive dupes? -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/29/85)
>But what's the justification for ALLOWING anyone to sue anyone for >any reason? These people are ridiculous! I think there should >be three possible verdicts in these cases: "suee guilty; >pay up", "suee not guilty, no compensation" and "trial was >incredible waste of time and money for all involved, suer pay >suee and government large amounts of money." Then maybe people >would think twice, and not be so quick to blame other people >for their own stupidity. > > marie desjardins park I don't know how it is in the States, but here, that's exactly what happens. The Court can award costs against either party (I'm not sure whether that includes lawyers' fees). Also, lawyers don't get a cut of the award if they win. They get paid for time and expenses (which can be an awful lot of money, and you pay even though you lose the case). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (07/31/85)
> > I realize this may generate some flames, and probably > could never get implemented (it has to get past the > lawyers first :-)), but how about this for a solution > to the problem of frivolous lawsuits: > > In addition to giving the judge the power to fine people > who bring such nonsense to the courtroom (which I think > is already being done in some places), how about putting > a cap on attorneys' fees for liability cases? At least then > if one of these silly cases should make it to court, it'll > prevent plaintiffs from asking for such ridiculous sums > (i.e. 3 Million for stubbing your toe). As now stands, if an > attorney gets, say, 10% of the settlement, it is in his/her > interest to "go for the big bucks". > > What do YOU think? > > SJBerry I think that it is impossible, by definition, to know the legal merits of a case before it is tried. It would be nice to get rid of "frivolous" cases, but we could never know which caes they were until after the trial concluded. An interesting consequence of judges fining plaintiffs and their attorneys in "frivolous" cases: Suppose you're an attorney and were so fined. What's the obvious answer? APPEAL!!!! This will clear court dockets? -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334
jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (08/03/85)
> > > (saved the best for last) > > > A man filed suit against a tavern for negligently serving him excessive > > > amounts of alcohol, leading to his arrest and humiliation after he stabbed > > > another man during an argument. > > > ---------- > > > Is there any justification for this sort of thing? > > > > Yes there is. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. The way one > > discovers whether the reason is on or off the wall is in the trial. > > The point is that trials cost tax money. No other civilized nation, > or I supposed uncivilized ones, has as many lawsuits on as many trivial > issues as the US. Most should never come to trial in the first place. > However, that's an uphill fight. We also have more lawyers per capita > than any other nation on earth and lawyers become judges and legislators-- > the very people who can control civil court procedures. Just a small > conflict of interest. We're so glad to be living in the USA.... (Chuck Berry) -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334