renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (02/11/85)
> The basis for the suit is that the driver was juiced on > Schlitz Malt Liquor ( A Stroh owned brand) and that when > the wreck occurred the 17 year old passenger was killed. > The parents claim (probably among others) is that Stroh should > have placed a warning label on their product about the > dangers of drinking and driving. > -- Bob Brown (rjb@akgua) The legal reasoning behind this case is known as the "theory of the deep pockets" -- that is, one sues the people with lots of money, not the people responsible for the harm. The complainants hope that Strohs will settle out of court for some fraction of $30meg. If the case is actually tried, they still might win; who knows what a jury will do? What they can't do is *lose* anything, since they have undoubtedly hired their lawyer on a contingent-fee basis. The problem is that the plaintiffs can't lose, no matter how ridiculous their suit. I think this needs to be changed. I think that people filing suits of no merit should be liable for damages. In this particular case, I think Strohs should be able to sue for legal fees and damage to their reputation. Most importantly, I think that when frivolous suits are filed on a contingent-fee basis, the *plaintiff's lawyer* should also be liable! *That* will put a damper on the abuse of contingency fees! Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/15/85)
In article <39400004@uiucdcs.UUCP> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: ||The problem is that the plaintiffs can't lose, no matter how ridiculous ||their suit. I think this needs to be changed. I think that people filing ||suits of no merit should be liable for damages. Not damages, but costs. The Canadian system is far superior to the U.S. in this regard, in my opinion. In any suit, the winner is normally awarded "party-and-party" costs (comes to something around 1/2 or real costs); if the court finds that a suit (or defense) was frivolous, it can award "solicitor-and-client" costs, which are (roughly) the actual legal fees. Costs are always in the discretion of the court, however; there have been cases where the [technical] winner of a case has had costs awarded against him. And whether contingency fees should be allowed at all is another question, of course. They're illegal in Ontario. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave