http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/19/MNGKTNLHOD1.DTL<b>Families of sexually abused girls sue MySpace, alleging negligence</b>

Four families whose underage daughters were sexually abused after meeting people they encountered on the social networking site MySpace have sued News Corp., the site's parent company, alleging it was negligent in not creating safety measures to protect younger users.

According to one of the lawsuits, a teen identified as Julie Doe III created a MySpace profile when she was 15. Last year, a 25-year-old adult male MySpace user, a complete stranger to the teen, initiated contact with her. He lured Julie out to a meeting, drugged her and sexually assaulted her.So, your daughter is a MySpace whore who voluntarily hooked up with some creep because of your bad parenting. The solution? Get millions from MySpace!

You even get bonus points for throwing around the second most evil term in America, "sex offender."

Next time you have a bad date from a bar or club, be sure to sue the bar or club for your bad judgment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/18/state/n165448S13.DTL<b>Family to sue radio station over water death</b>

Lawyers for the family of a woman who died after drinking nearly two gallons of water in an on-air radio contest said Thursday they will file a wrongful death lawsuit to make an example out of the station and attempt to curb the recklessness of shock jock radio.

"We believe we can get a judgment that people across the country will have to pay attention to," said Roger Dreyer, a personal injury lawyer who accused radio station KDND-FM of knowing of the dangers of the water-drinking contest but continuing anyway.

He charged that the contest that preceded the death of 28-year-old Jennifer Lea Strange, a mother of three from the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova, was nothing more than a ratings stunt designed to boost profits.

The object of the contest was to see how much water contestants could drink without going to the bathroom. The top prize was a Nintendo Wii gaming console. The DJs called the contest "Hold your Wee for a Wii."

Several hours into the program, Strange was interviewed and complained that her head hurt.

"They keep telling me that it's the water. That it will tell my head to hurt and then it will make me puke," she said.I'd offer this woman a Darwin Award, but it's too late, as she has already bred. Of course, the solution for being a total dumbass? Sue the big pocket.

The sad thing is, given the screwed up nature of our legal system, these people might actually win.

It should be fairly obvious most people don't realize there's a danger drinking too much water. Obviously the radio DJ's didn't know it, the contestants didn't know it, sounds like maybe only a few of the listeners were aware of it. I keep hearing about runners killing themselves (or nearly) by drinking too much water also. The message everyone hears all the time is to drink more water and they start to believe that more is better. Its like a mantra people chant in some circles... "did you drink enough water today"?

It should be fairly obvious most people don't realize there's a danger drinking too much water.Honestly, would you do what this woman did, and shrug off the warning symptoms? I doubt it.

Even if you were stupid enough to do so, why should the deepest pocket be responsible for your stupidity? If you kill yourself out of stupidity, YOU alone are responsible.

People die all the time because they don't realize that their relatively benign symptoms have something more deadly causing them.

You didn't answer either question.

Honestly, would you do what this woman did, and shrug off the warning symptoms? I doubt it.
No, because I know about hypernatremia and am at least slightly aware of the symptoms. And I would know that drinking that much water is dangerous. However, judging from what I hear people talking about, most people are unaware of the symptoms, might pass it off as a headache, go lay down and take a nap and wake up dead, so to speak.

Even if you were stupid enough to do so, why should the deepest pocket be responsible for your stupidity? If you kill yourself out of stupidity, YOU alone are responsible.
I think the radio station is guilty of enticing people to risk their lives for a stupid stunt. They lured ignorant people into a situation that harmed them. They should have had some oversight of the DJ's. Yeah, they deserve to be whalloped in the wallet. I think of it as corporate Dwarinism.

There was a blog post somewhere that had a link to the radio show, and indicated that the radio DJs knew about water intoxication and were discussing it beforehand. I don't have time to find the link again right now, but can do so later.

Yes, she should have educated herself as to the risks, but I'm sure she trusted the contest organizers and took for granted that they wouldn't do anything dangerous. Since they were encouraging people to participate without sufficiently outlining the risks (I'm just assuming this), they should be held responsible, in my opinion.

In fact, I think that if they were aware of the risks, they should not have held the contest in the first place.

I think the radio station is guilty of enticing people to risk their lives for a stupid stunt. They lured ignorant people into a situation that harmed them.If you go skydiving and forget to launch your parachute, should the company that provided the plane be guilty of enticing you to risk your life?Yeah, they deserve to be whalloped in the wallet.This is what fascinates me, the American preoccupation with shifting blame away from stupid people and towards the deepest pocket.

If this radio station is sued for millions, they will pass the cost on to their advertisers. Those advertisers will then pass the cost to the consumer, i.e., you and me. Not to mention you and I, as taxpayers, will bear the administrative cost of litigating this nonsense.

I don't want to subsidize stupidity. People also do not deserve to profit from a family member's stupidity. On the contrary, we should ridicule stupid people and encourage their genetic relations not to breed.

This is what fascinates me, the American preoccupation with shifting blame away from stupid people and towards the deepest pocket.
There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. You seem to be unable to distinguish that. Is that due to ignorance or stupidity? Or just plain stubborness.
If this radio station is sued for millions, they will pass the cost on to their advertisers. Those advertisers will then pass the cost to the consumer, i.e., you and me. Not to mention you and I, as taxpayers, will bear the administrative cost of litigating this nonsense.
No they won't, they'll go to another radio station.

There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity.Perhaps, but you'll find they're correlated.

Besides, ignorance doesn't excuse you from common sense. I bet no one on this board would guzzle gallons of water until their stomach blew up like a balloon, and then ignore serious warning symptoms, trusting that some clueless DJ has the medical expertise to vouch for the safety of the stunt.No they won't, they'll go to another radio station.Since the radio stations are all owned by a handful of companies, that money is going to be coming out of the consumers' pocket, one way or another. TANSTAAFL.

More links:

The show itself available online (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/quick-update-10-fired-show-cancelled-over-wii-water-contest-death-229396.php)
Criminal investigation started (http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=34466&siteSection=1)

Since the radio stations are all owned by a handful of companies, that money is going to be coming out of the consumers' pocket, one way or another. TANSTAAFL.
Yeah, right. Even if there were only radio station company it isn't like they couldn't go to print, TV, whatever. You're grasping.

Actually, with all the attention this radio station is receiving, I wouldn't be surprised if their audience, and advertising potential, were larger than ever.

But that's besides the point. A multi-million dollar judgment isn't paid out of thin air. It comes from somewhere, and eventually, we consumers and taxpayers have to pick up the collective tab. Not just for the judgment itself, but for the repercussions, and the army of lawyers that will be hired and mountains of paperwork that will be generated in the future to prevent additional lawsuits.

A multi-million dollar judgment isn't paid out of thin air. It comes from somewhere, and eventually, we consumers and taxpayers have to pick up the collective tab. Not just for the judgment itself, but for the repercussions, and the army of lawyers that will be hired and mountains of paperwork that will be generated in the future to prevent additional lawsuits.

That's standard anti-lawsuit propoganda. It has nothing to do with a free-to-listen radio station where consumers always have the choice to turn the dial.

This radio station has gone out of its way to kill one of its listeners. If another broadcaster doles out extreme treatment to the human body then yes I do hope they also have doctors and lawyers on hand. This is not a frivilous lawsuit example. A woman has died through what does appear to be the negligence of the event organisers.

I originally had the opinion that the water woman got what she bargained for. And that the jocks were just ignorant.

But in light of the new disclosures.

That all parties knew of the dangers.
That the radio DJs joked of the dangers.
They knew about the Chico kid.

I have since changed my opinion. The jocks, producer, and radio station CEO should go to jail. They were not ignorant, though they ignored the risk.

And the family, and their blood sucking law-yer, should not get a dime. Consumers should not have to pay for these idiots behavior.

Eventually skiing, boating, mountain biking, sky diving, and scuba diving, are going to be illegal anyway, anyhows, sooner rather than later; all things that I enjoy doing, so what the fck do I care? If any of them were invented today, they would most certainly be made illegal right away, anyhow.

The rest of you all are content and complacent with your lowest common denominator existence, and everyone is the same mentality. I will still do what I want to do, regardless of its illegality.

That's standard anti-lawsuit propoganda. It has nothing to do with a free-to-listen radio station where consumers always have the choice to turn the dial.You are not listening for "free"; you are giving up your time to hear advertisements, which is how those stations stay in business.

If the parent company, which owns many stations on that dial, has to pay out lawsuits, it will pass that cost to the consumer by either selling more ads, and wasting more of your time; or increasing the cost the ads, which, in turn, increases the cost of the advertisers' products; or both.

Either way, you pay for the lawsuit, not some fat CEO laughing to the bank or some evil DJ.

Even listening to a station owned by another company makes little difference. Once Clear Channel has to raise its advertising cost by 1%, Cumulus, Citadel, and Infinity will also do so, because they know the market will now bear that cost, and they know a price war isn't in their best interests.This radio station has gone out of its way to kill one of its listeners.So you're suggesting it's premeditated murder? Interesting.This is not a frivilous lawsuit example. A woman has died through what does appear to be the negligence of the event organisers.No, she died because of her own stupidity. I don't think you'd do what she did.

So the question becomes, how much do you, personally, want to pay to people who hurt themselves doing something stupid (or, in the case of death, to their family members)? Or, even more generally, why do you want us, as a society, to subsidize stupidity?

If someone made a contest to wrestle a full-grown grizzly bear wearing a meat loincloth, and if, and only if, you won, you got 3 million dollars, tax-free, would anyone do it?

Everyone that would is a Darwin award waiting to happen.

This lady just sold her life for a chance at something far less expensive. A gamesystem.

The DJ's and owners and CEO's of the radio station did not hold a gun to this woman's head. They were not holding her sons or daughters hostage. There was no coercion of any kind, therefore there is no case.

I think the only way some of the nittering nannies amongst us would be satisified that the woman died to her own stupidity by drinking too much H20, is if she carefully wrote 100 times on a blackboard somewhere. : "I realize this contest might kill me. I am taking a chance anyway."

Or maybe tattoed it with black ink indeliably on her body.

Take the warning labels off of everything, before society collapses. We don't need people that can't figure out it's not a good idea to stick your hand into a whirring lawnmower blade.

I repeat, take the warning labels off of everything! It's our only hope at eliminating some of the stupid, inane, idiotic, moronic absolute dog offal that goes on in our society. Britney Spears is just the tip of the iceberg, folks!

In related news, the 2006 Darwin awards are up.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

All those people, and this woman, should have known better.

That bears repeating. They should have known better. Probably they all did know better. Like the gas line worker who, frustrated with the lack of illumination in the area with the suspected gas leak, fired up a lighter to see better. Should his parents/family/friends/dog/cat/hamster get a chance to suck from the teat of the company's largess?

Give me a break. And give the taxpayers a break at the same time.

Taxpayers or consumers should not have to pay a dime for this stupid case.

Well, taxpayers should pay to prosecute the DJs, the producer, and the CEO of the radio station. And then pay for their incarceration, but that's it.

No, she died because of her own stupidity. I don't think you'd do what she did.

No I wouldn't have done what she did. I'd have guessed that excess water could cause kidney damage. I wouldn't have known it was fatal as I'd never heard of that cause of death before. I certainly wouldn't have staged that drinking contest though and I still consider that to be much more stupid.

Those organisers seemingly knew the contest was potentially fatal, ignored advice from their callers, encouraged people into this excessive activity, laughed at the symptoms of distress, and provided no medical help. They should have been aware that amongst all their contestants there were likely to be some people who were unaware of the dangers. Those people would not have the knowledge to make informed decisions on their drinking.

From the reported story the organisers do seem negligent. In the UK I suspect they might have been prosecuted by the crown, perhaps for corporate manslaughter.

I bet no one on this board would guzzle gallons of water until their stomach blew up like a balloon, and then ignore serious warning symptoms, trusting that some clueless DJ has the medical expertise to vouch for the safety of the stunt.Since the radio stations are all owned by a handful of companies, that money is going to be coming out of the consumers' pocket, one way or another.
Actually, I have! Right before my colonoscopy my Dr. prescribed a thing I had to drink a gallon of. It was hideous. Actually, when I heard about this woman dying of water intoxication I wondered if there was ever an issue about these fluids they make people drink before GI work... sure 'nuff there is.

No I wouldn't have done what she did.And that's the point. You wouldn't have done it, I wouldn't have, Panamah wouldn't have (unless under the direction of a doctor), and I bet no one on this board would have either.

We all wouldn't have done it because our common sense tells us it's stupid and potentially dangerous. Thus, this woman was stupid, and doesn't deserve any money from us on account of being stupid.

Perhaps you want to investigate the producers of the show to sustain a potential charge of negligent homicide. But we should not, under any circumstances, subsidize stupidity by giving this woman's relatives money.

This is what fascinates me, the American preoccupation with shifting blame away from stupid people and towards the deepest pocket.

Ditch the consept of punitive damages, leave the punishing up to the proper authorities, and you'll see a change. It's not so much fun to sue when the most you'll get is whatever covers your actual damages./pet mantra

Ditch the consept of punitive damages, leave the punishing up to the proper authorities, and you'll see a change. It's not so much fun to sue when the most you'll get is whatever covers your actual damages./pet mantraIf you mean limit lawsuit awards to economic damages only, I agree with you completely. It would reform our personal injury system overnight.

However, the big ticket item in lawsuits such as these is pain and suffering or other "soft" damages (such as wrongful death). That's where the millions are going to come from, not punitive damages. Punitive damages are just for cases where you can prove deliberate misconduct, e.g., if you can show the DJs wanted her dead.

Ditch the consept of punitive damages, leave the punishing up to the proper authorities, and you'll see a change. It's not so much fun to sue when the most you'll get is whatever covers your actual damages./pet mantra
That doesn't work for corporations though because you can't put corporations in jail.

We all wouldn't have done it because our common sense tells us it's stupid and potentially dangerous. Thus, this woman was stupid, and doesn't deserve any money from us on account of being stupid.

The woman does not have to be a medical student to deserve compensation. I expect most of the correspondents on this board would struggle to name the effects of excessive water consumption, any symptoms which would cause concern, or possible treatments. I'm sure many of the public would think that the most severe problems would be vomiting and queasiness, say, as with other eating contests. The woman did tell the organisers about her symptoms and did withdraw from the contest when she felt unwell, so her actions are not entirely unreasonable.

Moreover, this woman is not getting any money from us at all. First of all, she's dead. Secondly, we're not shareholders of the radio station so we're not paying.

Punitive damages are just for cases where you can prove deliberate misconduct, e.g., if you can show the DJs wanted her dead.

The negligence in this case seems pretty bad. The business seemingly knew the risks and ignored them, which I'd guess would be a factor in deciding whether the business needed "punishing". If the DJs wanted her dead then you'd be looking at a murder case, not a civil suit.

That doesn't work for corporations though because you can't put corporations in jail.

In the UK there is a charge of corporate manslaughter. A few people have been prosecuted but it's been very hard to prove in court. I think the threat of prosecution has made people look at safety much more carefully though. Nobody wants to be the person who ignores a risk in case the buck does stop there.

Secondly, we're not shareholders of the radio station so we're not paying.Is that why you're so eager to throw bundles of cash at stupid people? Because you (wrongly) think it's someone else's money?The negligence in this case seems pretty bad. The business seemingly knew the risks and ignored them, which I'd guess would be a factor in deciding whether the business needed "punishing".In California, you can only ask for punitive damages in cases involving oppression, fraud, or malice. "Really bad negligence" isn't enough.

Not to mention, punitive damages aren't really attractive in California for greedy plaintiff/lawyers. The State takes a 75% cut off the top, the award is fully taxable, and the standard of proof is very high.

Is that why you're so eager to throw bundles of cash at stupid people? Because you (wrongly) think it's someone else's money?

I think it's right for her family to be compensated since the clear negligence of the radio station (as reported) killed her. The woman has three children who will need to be brought up and that will need money. I'd be happy if someone at the station was charged with manslaughter. They've been as negligent as a drunk driver, say.

It doesn't matter if the woman was a stupid person or a brain surgeon. The radio station was running a dangerous contest, so dangerous that people rang in to tell them, and it ran the risk of killing any or all of the contestants. Their actions aren't excused by their killing a trusting person rather than a suspicious one.

In California, you can only ask for punitive damages in cases involving oppression, fraud, or malice. "Really bad negligence" isn't enough.

Fair enough.

I think it's right for her family to be compensated since the clear negligence of the radio station (as reported) killed her.I thought we had already gone through this. Her stupidity killed her. Had you or I (or anyone else on this board) been there, we would not have died, negligent DJs notwithstanding.The woman has three children who will need to be brought up and that will need money.Many people have children and need money. Why shouldn't they get it, too?

Besides, subsidizing the offspring of stupid people is a poor social policy. If we're going to give any parents a special subsidy, it should be the smart ones.The radio station was running a dangerous contestAre you suggesting that we, as a society, should forbid any dangerous contests?

Careful Tuda, you're sounding like a Conservative.

It should be fairly obvious most people don't realize there's a danger drinking too much water. Obviously the radio DJ's didn't know it, the contestants didn't know it, sounds like maybe only a few of the listeners were aware of it. I keep hearing about runners killing themselves (or nearly) by drinking too much water also. The message everyone hears all the time is to drink more water and they start to believe that more is better. Its like a mantra people chant in some circles... "did you drink enough water today"?

Actually, the DJ's did know about it.

They commented about it on the air a few times, evidently...while the contest was ongoing.

That being said...would suggest that the while the station, itself, holds some liability, were I the jury, I'd peg it at about 40%...that woman is mostly responsible for killing herself, through her own idiocy (especially since she was doing it for a WII. A PS3, I'd give 80% liability to the station, attractive nuisance =P) but that doesn't completely absolve the station of holding a contest which they knew to be dangerous, as evidenced by the words of their own DJs.

If you go skydiving and forget to launch your parachute, should the company that provided the plane be guilty of enticing you to risk your life?This is what fascinates me, the American preoccupation with shifting blame away from stupid people and towards the deepest pocket.

That's a piss poor analogy.

A better one might be, if you go skydiving and you open your shoot too late, because the company didn't educate you properly...

Yes, skydiving is inherantly dangerous...but if you are going to make money off of a dangerous venture, you have certain responsibilities to ensure a certain level of safety.

The same can be said of this radio station.

If this radio station is sued for millions, they will pass the cost on to their advertisers. Those advertisers will then pass the cost to the consumer, i.e., you and me. Not to mention you and I, as taxpayers, will bear the administrative cost of litigating this nonsense.

Dude...**** off with that crap. Its chicken little **** "Oh nos...everyone's ****ing Big Mac is going to cost 0.005 cents more now because they sued the radio station".

Um...If this radio station is sued for millions, their insurance company will pick up the tab...which will be a drop in the bucket of their annual losses from ****ty investing. The insurance company will raise the rates for the radio station by small amount, which will simply increase the company's already massive tax write-off.

I don't want to subsidize stupidity. People also do not deserve to profit from a family member's stupidity. On the contrary, we should ridicule stupid people and encourage their genetic relations not to breed.

Hey, my tax money ends up in California, I have no doubt. If I can subsidize the idiocy which is your state...you can suck it up a bit.

If someone made a contest to wrestle a full-grown grizzly bear wearing a meat loincloth, and if, and only if, you won, you got 3 million dollars, tax-free, would anyone do it?

People here in Ohio, literally, do wrestle bears...well some people. I'm not one of them.


This lady just sold her life for a chance at something far less expensive. A gamesystem.


The DJ's and owners and CEO's of the radio station did not hold a gun to this woman's head. They were not holding her sons or daughters hostage. There was no coercion of any kind, therefore there is no case.

You're a piss poor judge of justice or law.

There does not need to be coercion. The radio station has a responsibility to act in a safe manner, part of that is to refrain from enticing people into dangerous actions, for the sake of ratings points. Stupidity on the part of the lady does not absolve them of their responsibilities. Stupid people have rights also.

I think the only way some of the nittering nannies amongst us would be satisified that the woman died to her own stupidity by drinking too much H20, is if she carefully wrote 100 times on a blackboard somewhere. : "I realize this contest might kill me. I am taking a chance anyway."

Again, stupidity does not render a person without rights....if it did, tort reformists would all be locked up for spewing ****ing idiocy.



Take the warning labels off of everything, before society collapses. We don't need people that can't figure out it's not a good idea to stick your hand into a whirring lawnmower blade.

We don't need people who think eugenics is some noble act, either. I know which of the two sub-sections of America I'd shoot first...and it wouldn't be "stupid" people.

I repeat, take the warning labels off of everything! It's our only hope at eliminating some of the stupid, inane, idiotic, moronic absolute dog offal that goes on in our society. Britney Spears is just the tip of the iceberg, folks!

Last I heard, despite the best efforts of audiophiles everywhere, Britney Spears has no warning labels...so what the **** is your point?

In related news, the 2006 Darwin awards are up.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

All those people, and this woman, should have known better.

That bears repeating. They should have known better. Probably they all did know better. Like the gas line worker who, frustrated with the lack of illumination in the area with the suspected gas leak, fired up a lighter to see better. Should his parents/family/friends/dog/cat/hamster get a chance to suck from the teat of the company's largess?

Give me a break. And give the taxpayers a break at the same time.

Guess what, the taxpayers don't pay, you stupid ****. Not that you care, you love giving away the taxpayers money...you would just give it to insurance companies and oil companies...and keep that money out of the hands of the people who are getting screwed.

/applaud.

A real ****ing hero.

If you mean limit lawsuit awards to economic damages only, I agree with you completely. It would reform our personal injury system overnight.

However, the big ticket item in lawsuits such as these is pain and suffering or other "soft" damages (such as wrongful death). That's where the millions are going to come from, not punitive damages. Punitive damages are just for cases where you can prove deliberate misconduct, e.g., if you can show the DJs wanted her dead.

Yes, but your brackets confuse me into thinking I don't mean it in the way you do. Wrongful death can have financial consequences, and when it does, said injury should be compensated provided the economic injury can be documented. In addition, usually when **** happens, any TIME that the plaintiff's have had to spend working on getting the matter sorted out, should also be compensated for imo, even if that's not something that directly cost them money.

Example:
Drunk driver hits my husband's car. Drunk driver is CEO of Filthyrichcompany'r'us on his way back from some champagne luncheon or whatnot. Car is totalled, my carpenter husband ends up with one arm missing. This is my opinionated calculation of the damages that should be paid out:

- incurred financial damages (hospital cost and other medical costs, cost of transport to and from hospital and any trips to the doctor after the hospital stay that comes as a result of the crash. Past loss of income as a result of husband being in hospital and later at the doctor's instead of at work, rental costs for a car so we actually had one in the time between the crash and the time we could reasonably be expected to buy another, and other expenses that came as a result of the crash.
- future financial damages (loss of income as a result that he can no longer work as a carpenter. Future expenses ranging from future medical costs if his treatment is not over at the time of the desicion to the cost of our family now having to hire carpenters to do that kind of work at our own house. He also has to drive custom built cars for the rest of his life, so the difference between the cost of those cars and what it'd reasonably cost him to buy "normal" cars for life should be calculated in here). etc
- time-spent: Even if no loss of income occured doing these things, the time spent writing letters, making phone calls, driving back and forth to meetings etc, in general "time spent" to work the legal matter out should be compensated.

That's it. (Disclaimer: I've only had one cup of coffee, there might be actual damages that obviously should be listed here.)

I don't care how bad you want to punish the big bad company for encouraging champagne-filled power lunches, even knowing that such behaviour easily could ruin someone else's life. I don't really care how much I stayed awake all night suffering the horror of thinking my childrens' daddy might not make it. If we want it to be illegal and we want big bad companies to be financially punished for policies such as this, we make it illegal - as in "a crime", and we punish them via the criminal system. And as for my waking nights - nomatter how much we want to, it's futile to try to compensate pain with money. Hence, it's almost insulting to even try, so let's .. not.

That doesn't work for corporations though because you can't put corporations in jail.

But you can fine them - trillions of dollarses if you want. Problem solved.

I thought we had already gone through this. Her stupidity killed her.

No. You've just repeated it again, and again, and again. You've ignored anything that anyone else has said on the matter. That's all.

Dude...**** off with that crap. Its chicken little **** "Oh nos...everyone's ****ing Big Mac is going to cost 0.005 cents more now because they sued the radio station".

Um...If this radio station is sued for millions, their insurance company will pick up the tab...which will be a drop in the bucket of their annual losses from ****ty investing.A drop here, a drop there, and suddenly, the bucket is overflowing, and you have a $180 billion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/tortliabilitysystem_apr02.pdf) tort industry. Almost 2% of our entire GDP. If you follow the link:the cost of excessive tort may be quite substantial, with intermediate estimates equivalent to a 2 percent tax on consumption, a 3 percent tax on wages, or a 5 percent tax on capital income. As with any tax, the economic burden of the “tort tax” is ultimately borne by individuals through higher prices, reduced wages, or decreased investment returns.That's not some nameless insurance company or fat CEO paying it out. You and I are paying it.The insurance company will raise the rates for the radio station by small amount, which will simply increase the company's already massive tax write-off.The taxpayers subsidize write-offs.Hey, my tax money ends up in California, I have no doubt. If I can subsidize the idiocy which is your state...you can suck it up a bit.Given that our economy is four times the size of yours, it's far more likely that we're subsidizing you.

Yes, but your brackets confuse me into thinking I don't mean it in the way you do.No, you do. By economic damages I mean real, quantifiable, out-of-pocket expenses that resulted from the injury. Like lost wages (including lost time, and the difference in salary between the new job and the old job, if the injury forced you to quit the old job), medical bills, day care if you can no longer look after the kids due to your injury, and so on.

The idea is to put you, economically, back in the position you were right before the accident, and I agree completely that those should be awarded.

But people like Aidon will tell you that that's not enough. That we have to throw tens of millions of dollars at the plaintiff for hurt feelings and lack of sex ("pain and suffering" and "loss of consortium"), and billions of dollars in punitive damages just to screw over the bad guy. (With Aidon's firm skimming 33% of that off the top, of course.)

These damages are what drive all the frivolous litigation in the United States and are the big sticking point in tort reform. If we adopted your/my model of tort litigation, the problem would disappear overnight.

Careful Tuda, you're sounding like a Conservative.Just because I agree with a few liberal positions doesn't mean I'm going to buy all their political bull**** wholesale. If something looks broken or wrong, I'm going to point it out, no matter what party I happen to be agreeing with. Even if it's the libertarian party.

No, you do. By economic damages I mean real, quantifiable, out-of-pocket expenses that resulted from the injury. Like lost wages (including lost time, and the difference in salary between the new job and the old job, if the injury forced you to quit the old job), medical bills, day care if you can no longer look after the kids due to your injury, and so on.

Well, then we agree, I just didn't realise that "pain and suffering" and those kinds of compensation were compensated to such an extent as you describe. I was under the impression that it was punitive damages that caused the big payouts without equal actual damages being documented. Nomatter - let's do away with both.

Well, then we agree, I just didn't realise that "pain and suffering" and those kinds of compensation were compensated to such an extent as you describe.Yes. In states without tort reform, you often see pain and suffering damages equaling 5-10 times the amount of economic damages awarded.

In a RAND study (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG234.pdf) of medical malpractice cases in California in 1999, the median noneconomic award ($260,000) was over four times the median economic damage award ($61,000).

This is why California has enacted numerous tort reforms, such as capping noneconomic damages at $250,000 and limiting attorney's fees in cases with large judgments. (The jury is unaware of the caps, and is allowed to award whatever number they like, but the judge reduces the verdict after the fact to comply with the law.)

Across all cases, including massive business litigation which is virtually all economic and skews the averages, only 22% (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4641&sequence=5) of the total cost of the tort system goes towards compensating plaintiffs for economic loss.

It's a broken system.

Ditch the consept of punitive damages, leave the punishing up to the proper authorities, and you'll see a change. It's not so much fun to sue when the most you'll get is whatever covers your actual damages./pet mantra

Heh...the fact is that if punitive damages vanished tomorrow the vast majority of torts in the US wouldn't be affected at all, that doesn't mean its a good idea though.

And the proper authorities is a civil court via punitive damages. We don't need to put more people in jail over here...we already have more than any two other nations combined.

A drop here, a drop there, and suddenly, the bucket is overflowing, and you have a $180 billion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/tortliabilitysystem_apr02.pdf) tort industry.

That number is such bull****. Its derived from spurious and flawed research inclusive of the entire court system. Oh, by the way, 180 billion a year, even if it was completely true, is nothing.

America pays more per year on advertising. What good does advertising do anyone, versus something important, like justice?

Almost 2% of our entire GDP. If you follow the link:That's not some nameless insurance company or fat CEO paying it out. You and I are paying it.The taxpayers subsidize write-offs.Given that our economy is four times the size of yours, it's far more likely that we're subsidizing you.

You folks have more than three times as many people as Ohio, and thats just counting the legals ones...and california's GSP is just over three times the size of Ohio's. You have more people living in poverty though, by percentage.

So, no, its very unlikely California is subsidizing Ohio.

But people like Aidon will tell you that that's not enough. That we have to throw tens of millions of dollars at the plaintiff for hurt feelings and lack of sex ("pain and suffering" and "loss of consortium"), and billions of dollars in punitive damages just to screw over the bad guy. (With Aidon's firm skimming 33% of that off the top, of course.)

pain and suffering and loss of consortium are more than merely hurt feelings and lack of sex.

Tell me Tudamorf. How much would it be worth to you to spend the rest of your life without an arm, for instance? It may only have cost you 250,000 in economic damages...but really, would you give up an arm for 250k?

And loss of consortium is not merely sex. When a man's unable to support his family, is out of work for three years because of an injury, can't play ball with his kid, is short tempered with his wife because he's suffering depression from being in a position of failure due to his inability to support his family...that deserves compensation.

And yes, sex is part of it. Sex is worth alot to a person. How much would want to let someone make you impotent for life because you're paralyzed from the waist down, or because that diesel exhaust you've been inhaling on the job for 10 years has given you bladder cancer?

And yes, firms take 25-40% for a plaintiff, on contingency. Its the way it works...the upfront costs out of an attorney's pocket to prosecute a consequential tort action can be massive. When you see and hear stories of attorneys getting 2nd and 3rd mortgages on their homes in order to continue representing a class action against a major corporation, it isn't always make believe. You want an expert? You can count on having to pay him at least 2 grand up front...and up to 15 grand up front, depending on his field and qualifications. Of course that doesn't include time he actuall spends on the case...and heaven forbid he actually has to testify at a trial.

You have no concept the cost of practice as a plaintiff's attorney and the thin margin of profit most plaintiff's attorney's survive on, and those are just the ones who practice for themselves. If you're not a partner in the firm, you make relatively little money considering you have a doctoral degree.

These damages are what drive all the frivolous litigation in the United States and are the big sticking point in tort reform. If we adopted your/my model of tort litigation, the problem would disappear overnight.

First of all, there is very little frivolous litigation in the US. Just because you think its frivolous doesn't make it so. If cases are frivolous...they get thrown out of court, Tudamorf. That system is already in place and has been for centuries.

And if you adopted your model of tort litigation, you'd find that caveat emptor was once again the rule of the day, now that corporations didn't even have the rare risk of a multi-million dollar punitive damage award (of course...most multi-million dollar awards which are not economic in nature are drastically reduced by the judge...not that tort reformist like to let people know that)

Tell me Tudamorf. How much would it be worth to you to spend the rest of your life without an arm, for instance? It may only have cost you 250,000 in economic damages...but really, would you give up an arm for 250k?

And loss of consortium is not merely sex. When a man's unable to support his family, is out of work for three years because of an injury, can't play ball with his kid, is short tempered with his wife because he's suffering depression from being in a position of failure due to his inability to support his family...that deserves compensation.

And yes, sex is part of it. Sex is worth alot to a person.If I lose a leg to cancer, how much compensation do I get? How much if I get laid off, can't support my family, and get depressed? How much if I break up with my girlfriend and don't have sex for a month?

Why is it fair to compensate a stupid person for these things, but not a smart person, who knows how to stay out of harm's way?

And what if a person is willing to endure one of your situations for a sum of money; do they really ever have that choice?And yes, firms take 25-40% for a plaintiff, on contingency.Which is another source of the problem: you have an incentive to blow damages out of all proportion. Luckily, California tort reform limits this, but not all states do so.You have no concept the cost of practice as a plaintiff's attorney and the thin margin of profit most plaintiff's attorney's survive on, and those are just the ones who practice for themselves. If you're not a partner in the firm, you make relatively little money considering you have a doctoral degree.Right. I guess that is why personal injury lawyers are a dime a dozen, because it's so not lucrative.First of all, there is very little frivolous litigation in the US. Just because you think its frivolous doesn't make it so.Of course it does. When I say frivolous I mean what I think is frivolous, not what you think is frivolous.And if you adopted your model of tort litigation, you'd find that caveat emptor was once again the rule of the day, now that corporations didn't even have the rare risk of a multi-million dollar punitive damage award (of course...most multi-million dollar awards which are not economic in nature are drastically reduced by the judge...not that tort reformist like to let people know that)No, if we adopted my model, we'd be just like Europe and other first world countries, who have none of the problems you're predicting.

I assure you, if we emptied our prisoners of all those nonviolent drug users, we'd have plenty of room for corporate CEOs, and then some.

And the proper authorities is a civil court via punitive damages. We don't need to put more people in jail over here...we already have more than any two other nations combined.

Who said anything about putting more people in jail? Fine'em if what they have done is so bad.

And "proper authorities" is what the society decides are the "proper authorities", and there's nothing stopping society from changing it's mind about what that is.

And if you adopted your model of tort litigation, you'd find that caveat emptor was once again the rule of the day, now that corporations didn't even have the rare risk of a multi-million dollar punitive damage award (of course...most multi-million dollar awards which are not economic in nature are drastically reduced by the judge...not that tort reformist like to let people know that)

Noone is claiming that corporations should all of a sudden get away with doing bad ****. Stop talking as if we are.

Noone is claiming that corporations should all of a sudden get away with doing bad ****. Stop talking as if we are.

Exactly.

For the most part the behavior of corporations could easily be kept in line if you punished the individuals responsible for their bad behaviors.

Whether that is fines or jail time for the actual people responsible.

The great thing is, is that it would come at little cost to society or to consumers to target bad behavior this way.

I see the problem with those who think that corporations are a machine in order to gain your livelihood from(such as lawyers), or as machines to spread wealth from many people to a few who happen to win the legal lottery. Those people don't like the idea of personal or individual responsibility. Combine that with the fact that individual corporate workers, from top to bottom, have very shallow pockets comparatively.

I tell you what, if I worked for a corporation, and I could be personally liable for my mistakes, instead of hidden behind corporate protections, I would be very very careful about how I did my business within it. Corporate protections of its workers causes people to become apathetic and negligent about personal ethics and behavior.

If those DJs did not have the notion that the Radio Station, and Radio Mega-Corp Inc. was going to be between them and the consequences of their actions, that woman would still be alive today. If they thought for half of a minute that they could be personally liable for their actions, we would not be having this discussion now.

If those DJs did not have the notion that the Radio Station, and Radio Mega-Corp Inc. was going to be between them and the consequences of their actions, that woman would still be alive today. If they thought for half of a minute that they could be personally liable for their actions, we would not be having this discussion now.They are personally liable. But no one bothers suing them because they can't pay multi-million dollar judgments.

The American tort system is all about targeting the deepest pocket, not the one who is most to blame.

They are personally liable. But no one bothers suing them because they can't pay multi-million dollar judgments.

The American tort system is all about targeting the deepest pocket, not the one who is most to blame.

Well, the Sacramento Sheriffs department is looking at getting them with criminal charges, as well they should.

As Libertarian as I am, and you know I am, I don't think that people who stand on the Golden Gate Bridge and goad, cajole, or even pay stupid depressed people to jump off it should be unaccountable for their actions.

As decadent as I am, I just can't go there if they get caught in the act. As much as I would enjoy the entertainment, it is not a good thing for normal human social interactions.

The tort system is awful, it is absolutely the most broke part of the legal system that we have. It is essentially a surcharge on all of us, and trial lawyers and insurance companies are the beneficiaries of that surcharge.

My utopian solutions to the legal system would decimate the tort system. Every single tort trial attorney or claims adjuster would have to go find another job providing an actual service or making a product. Not leeching off the system, lazy willy nilly like they do now. Have them clean toilets in WalMart, overnight, and put the illegals out of business.

As Libertarian as I am, and you know I am, I don't think that people who stand on the Golden Gate Bridge and goad, cajole, or even pay stupid depressed people to jump off it should be unaccountable for their actions.That's interesting. You've not only renounced libertarianism, you seem to have found Jesus.My utopian solutions to the legal system would decimate the tort system. Every single tort trial attorney or claims adjuster would have to go find another job providing an actual service or making a product.Most likely, they'd just move to another area of law.

There does not need to be coercion. The radio station has a responsibility to act in a safe manner, part of that is to refrain from enticing people into dangerous actions, for the sake of ratings points. Stupidity on the part of the lady does not absolve them of their responsibilities. Stupid people have rights also.

They most certainly have the right to hurt themselves in creative ways, but they don't have the right to take any money from me, and that includes driving the costs of products I consume upwards, thus, in effect, taking more money from me to purchase those said products. However, in this case, in the particular example of the radio station, despite Tuda's arguments to the contrary, I don't see as directly impacting things economically. Radio is free, after all.

We don't need people who think eugenics is some noble act, either. I know which of the two sub-sections of America I'd shoot first...and it wouldn't be "stupid" people.

Eugenics? I'm not proposing any programs to select against certain genotypes. I am horrified you would think I would. No, I'm simply saying let natural consquences of people's poor decision making run their normal course. Don't attempt to alter the consquences of stupid actions by throwing gobs of money at them. Then you might get the "chicken little" scenario in which people attempt to "injure" themselves to get the new candy you've dangled in front of their face.

Finger-in-the-chili ring a bell?

The sensational monetary awards, by the way, never seem to get to the 'stupid' people. They seem to go to the lawyer firms that decided for the 'stupid' people it would be a good idea for them to sue in the first place. Whoever the 'stupid' people are, it's certainly not the lawyers. They get an average of 33% of personal injury claims on every claim. 3 similar claims succesfully won, and they have achieved the same effect as losing an arm/leg/randomly assorted body part, while retaining all of theirs.

Your negative position on tort reform was to be expected, however. Since you expressed a desire at one point to pursue a career in law, would you be considering the highly lucrative field of personal injury claims for your own career? I didn't think you were, but thought I'd ask.

Last I heard, despite the best efforts of audiophiles everywhere, Britney Spears has no warning labels...so what the **** is your point?
Britney Spears would be one of those moronic effects of the culture, not directly related to the use or disuse of warning labels. More of a logical end result of allowing stupid people even more money in which to carry on being stupid.

And the "take the warning labels off of everything" was hopefully able to be understood as excessive hyperbole. It's from a comedy bit I heard and thought was applicable to this situation. I do think we have way too many "Captain Obvious" warning labels, however.

How does one need a sign to say: "Don't open airplane door during flight"?
How does one need a label on Preparation H: "Do not ingest"?
How does one need a warning on a package of peanuts: "Warning: May contain peanuts" ?

If we get to the point as a society where we need these things spelled out for us, then we are doomed.

Guess what, the taxpayers don't pay, you stupid ****.

And now *I'm* the one who's stupid. I think not.

Not that you care, you love giving away the taxpayers money...you would just give it to insurance companies and oil companies...and keep that money out of the hands of the people who are getting screwed.

I have no idea where this idea of me giving away the taxpayers money to oil and insurance companies comes from. I am one of the people who would love nothing else to remove our dependency from all oil not domestically produced, and go to pure electric personal vehicles. Sadly, the cost efficiency still is with the gas-powered automobile at this time. I would have purchased a Prius last year had it been more economically beneficial to me.

A real ****ing hero.

I try. Seriously though, your comments seem to always include an ad hominem attack. Nice. Unless it's also hyperbole, to which I say, good job!

If I lose a leg to cancer, how much compensation do I get? How much if I get laid off, can't support my family, and get depressed? How much if I break up with my girlfriend and don't have sex for a month?

The difference being that (assumably) in your hypothetical situation, the negligent actions of someone else did not cause your cancer. Sometimes bad **** happens...and we can't do much about it; however, when someone causes bad **** to happen, through their negligence, then you are entitled to compensation. Not merely for the bare minimum costs, for your loss is not always merely the financial costs you have incurred.

If your favorite example of evil, the dreaded drunk driver, runs a red light and T-bone's me putting me in a wheel chair for the rest of my life...I deserve more than the cost of the wheel chair. He took away a huge portion and potential of my life. I deserve sufficient funds to ensure that I can attempt, in some manner, to allieviate this ephemeral loss of lifestyle. If I can no longer have sex, because my spine is broken, then I should have enough money to help block that out through whatever means I desire to so take. If I will never be able to teach my daughter how to ride a horse, because I'm wheelchair bound, then I should have the funds to ensure that someone else can teach her at least.

Loss is not merely the cost of the hospital stay and wage loss.

Why is it fair to compensate a stupid person for these things, but not a smart person, who knows how to stay out of harm's way?

Because, despite your callous, hopelessly naive presumption, it isn't merely "stupid" people who are injured by the negligence of another party. Look at medical malpractice, for instance, which has been gutted in much of America, already, mind you (not that its kept the insurance prices down, mind you). If a surgeon screws the pooch...how am I stupid? If the anesthesiologist uses the wrong dosage on me, that makes me stupid how?

Because who are you to determine what is or isn't stupid, unless you are sitting on the jury hearing the evidence presented?

Which is another source of the problem: you have an incentive to blow damages out of all proportion. Luckily, California tort reform limits this, but not all states do so.

California tort reforms, haven't done a damn thing to help Californians. Its made insurance companies happier though. By the by, we can't "blow damages out of all proportion". In case you didn't realize it (since you seem to have the opinion that plaintiffs attorneys just walk in state how much they want, and its given to them) there are these people called defense attorneys...

Right. I guess that is why personal injury lawyers are a dime a dozen, because it's so not lucrative.

Gas station attendants are a dime a dozen, also. So are IT people. Actually for PI attorneys and IT personnel, the pay range is very similar, unless you own the firm (I have no idea what consulting firm owners make for IT).


Of course it does. When I say frivolous I mean what I think is frivolous, not what you think is frivolous.

No, you bumbling nincompoop. Frivolous, when speaking about the law, is determined not by me, nor by you, but by a judge. Just because you think a lawsuit is ridiculous, based on the incomplete information you get from a two page web news story, does not make it anywhere near being so. Frivolous suits are thrown out.

No, if we adopted my model, we'd be just like Europe and other first world countries, who have none of the problems you're predicting.

They are also socialist nations...so until we decide, as a society, to abandon welfare capitalism and become socialist, their system of justice isn't going to work too well for us.

I assure you, if we emptied our prisoners of all those nonviolent drug users, we'd have plenty of room for corporate CEOs, and then some.

You are truly an evil person. You would rather see people in prison, than see an injured party get paid. Somehow, in your mind, it will benefit anyone to send a CEO to prison, rather than compensating the plaintiff?

Fortunately, we have standards of conduct. There are broad lines between negligence, willful negligence sufficient for punitive damages, and criminal negligence. Further, unless the State can prove that the CEO of a company was aware of what was happening, he shouldn't be sent to prison.

Radio is free, after all.

Not really.

Companies, usually consumer type products, sponser radio through commercials.
The radio company is going to raise its rates for those commercials, to cover the additional costs.
The sponsers will then raise their prices of their goods and services to compensate.
Consumers will bear the whole cost.

Unless the radio company can find an alternative way of cutting costs, such as laying off employees, that do not pass on down the chain. But that would be unlikely. They could cut salaries and paychecks, though.

And I doubt that you do not buy products which are advertised on radio. The costs are disseminated, but almost every bit of it will hit the consumers in the pocket.

They are personally liable. But no one bothers suing them because they can't pay multi-million dollar judgments.

The American tort system is all about targeting the deepest pocket, not the one who is most to blame.

No, its about the fact that our society insures everything. You're a dumb****. You truly are.

They will be sued, along with the radio station, because a company is responsible for the conduct of their employees (or else they could simply blame the employees for everything always). Without a doubt the station's insurance policy covers those two gentlemen for incidents which occur while they were working.

Now, if they weren't covered by it...most likely, yes, the attorneys would not bother pressing the suit against them individually, as it would be a waste of everyone's time and money and do nothing, unless the plaintiff's decided to press forward with the suit specifically to bankrupt the two DJs out of anger.

That doesn't absolve the radio station of its liability.

Well, the Sacramento Sheriffs department is looking at getting them with criminal charges, as well they should.

As Libertarian as I am, and you know I am, I don't think that people who stand on the Golden Gate Bridge and goad, cajole, or even pay stupid depressed people to jump off it should be unaccountable for their actions.

As decadent as I am, I just can't go there if they get caught in the act. As much as I would enjoy the entertainment, it is not a good thing for normal human social interactions.

The tort system is awful, it is absolutely the most broke part of the legal system that we have. It is essentially a surcharge on all of us, and trial lawyers and insurance companies are the beneficiaries of that surcharge.

My utopian solutions to the legal system would decimate the tort system. Every single tort trial attorney or claims adjuster would have to go find another job providing an actual service or making a product. Not leeching off the system, lazy willy nilly like they do now. Have them clean toilets in WalMart, overnight, and put the illegals out of business.

Hey, Fy'yr...what are you doing that is productive? Oh wait, that's right, you're almost certainly leeching off the system while you get edumacated again.

I will laugh when the day comes that you find yourself suing someone.

Almost as much as I laugh when I see doctors suing other doctors for malpractice.

And I doubt that you do not buy products which are advertised on radio.

Actually, I don't. Some of what I buy could be advertised on radio, but I don't know about it. And I highly doubt generic brands are advertised at all, except to tout their lower price. I look at everything as price per unit, and active ingredients vs. inactive ingredients. What other reason would you buy anything? You like the logo?

One example is there is no need to ever buy brand name dandruff shampoo. The active/inactive ingredients are exactly the same on most generic brand shampoos. The rest is in your head, not on it.

My motto is whatever is most cost effective, counting hidden costs, like likelihood of needful replacement in a shortened timespan due to shoddy construction materials. Some things bought cheaply are actually more expensive once you take the 10 year or 20 year view.

Hey, Fy'yr...what are you doing that is productive? Oh wait, that's right, you're almost certainly leeching off the system while you get edumacated again.
Education is an investment. And I have paid many many times in taxes what the State of California has paid for my education.

I will laugh when the day comes that you find yourself suing someone.
I have sued 6 times. And have been sued 3 times, with a couple love letters from lawyers(one of them was a fraternity buddy of mine, ha). I don't understand your point.

I have had to pay over 30K in liability insurance though, over the years, to which not one cent of it was ever needed or recouped. I just passed the cost onto my customers. It was wasted money.

Almost as much as I laugh when I see doctors suing other doctors for malpractice.
I don't understand this sentence.

They most certainly have the right to hurt themselves in creative ways, but they don't have the right to take any money from me, and that includes driving the costs of products I consume upwards, thus, in effect, taking more money from me to purchase those said products. However, in this case, in the particular example of the radio station, despite Tuda's arguments to the contrary, I don't see as directly impacting things economically. Radio is free, after all.

Except, the fact remains that cases do not end up in the court system, if there was not a real question. I don't know anything about this girl. You dont' know anything about her. For all you know the DJ's told her off the air despite what they were saying about how dangerous it can be to drink too much water, she was nowhere near the amount needed? What if she was just some young 20 year old girl who plain didn't know any better? The fact remains, we know very little about what happened, other than a radio show hosted a contest where they knew of the potential dangers (if didn't believe it could happen). They bear some responsibility. You would destroy the system which protects people, simply because you dont' want this girl's family getting any money?


Explain that one to the guy who's sole "stupidity" was getting up and driving to work in the morning, only to have someone cross the center line and hit him head on.


Eugenics? I'm not proposing any programs to select against certain genotypes. I am horrified you would think I would. No, I'm simply saying let natural consquences of people's poor decision making run their normal course. Don't attempt to alter the consquences of stupid actions by throwing gobs of money at them. Then you might get the "chicken little" scenario in which people attempt to "injure" themselves to get the new candy you've dangled in front of their face.

Finger-in-the-chili ring a bell?

It seems to me that the finger in the chili scenario pretty much shows that we don't have to worry, overmuch, about people getting away with "taking advantage" of the system. As I recall, she ended up going to jail. This notion people have that it is better to remove the rights of the many in order to keep a few bad seeds from abusing it, is preposterous.

The sensational monetary awards, by the way, never seem to get to the 'stupid' people. They seem to go to the lawyer firms that decided for the 'stupid' people it would be a good idea for them to sue in the first place. Whoever the 'stupid' people are, it's certainly not the lawyers. They get an average of 33% of personal injury claims on every claim. 3 similar claims succesfully won, and they have achieved the same effect as losing an arm/leg/randomly assorted body part, while retaining all of theirs.

What a ridiculous argument. Lawers obviously don't get more than their clients....so the monetary awards do get to their clients.

Your negative position on tort reform was to be expected, however. Since you expressed a desire at one point to pursue a career in law, would you be considering the highly lucrative field of personal injury claims for your own career? I didn't think you were, but thought I'd ask.

My father started his own law firm, my cousin manages it now. If I decide to go to law school, I will join the firm. We are a personal injury firm. We pretty much focus on railroad worker injuries and truck accidents, like a recently settled case where a semi-truck tried to pass our client going 60+ miles per hour on a two lane road, at night, in freezing rain and slush. It so happens he was unable to make the passing maneuver before oncoming traffic rounded a curve, forcing him to drop back and shift back into the right lane, in the process he clipped the bumper of our client's car, spinning it sideways into that oncoming traffic, which t-boned our clients passenger side door, killing his 8 month-pregnant wife. The lifeflight surgeons tried to deliver his son via an emergency c-section, but the baby only lived for an hour. The truck driver didn't even stop. The police found him about 10 miles down the pulled over. He was busy trying to fix his falsified logbook to hide the fact that he hadn't met his hours of service requirements in 55 hours and trying to hide his radar detector (its against federal regulation for a radar detector to even be in a semi-cab).

That man lost a son and a wife. They had a young daughter who will never see her mother again. They did nothing wrong, except make the mistake of
being on the road with a truck driver who was a damn fool.

Tell me that family doesn't deserve more than the hospital bills to be covered (because she didn't work, she has no wage loss, btw).

Some of our cases are other areas, like the case where the nursing home left a 45 year old woman with severe multiple sclerosis outside in 100 degree weather, alone, for three hours. She died. You see, severe heat and multiple slclerosis do not mix well.

Yeah, we lawyers are bad people inventing frivolous cases out of thin air.

And the "take the warning labels off of everything" was hopefully able to be understood as excessive hyperbole. It's from a comedy bit I heard and thought was applicable to this situation. I do think we have way too many "Captain Obvious" warning labels, however.

How does one need a sign to say: "Don't open airplane door during flight"?
How does one need a label on Preparation H: "Do not ingest"?
How does one need a warning on a package of peanuts: "Warning: May contain peanuts" ?

How do these stupid labels hurt you in any way, that you feel we need to get rid of them


And now *I'm* the one who's stupid. I think not.

Tell me how the taxpayers pay?


I have no idea where this idea of me giving away the taxpayers money to oil and insurance companies comes from. I am one of the people who would love nothing else to remove our dependency from all oil not domestically produced, and go to pure electric personal vehicles. Sadly, the cost efficiency still is with the gas-powered automobile at this time. I would have purchased a Prius last year had it been more economically beneficial to me.

It was merely commentary on your republican leanings and the fact that tort reform does absolutely nothing but take money away from injured people and give it to insurance companies, who then proceed to increase rates, regardless.

Not really.

Companies, usually consumer type products, sponser radio through commercials.
The radio company is going to raise its rates for those commercials, to cover the additional costs.
The sponsers will then raise their prices of their goods and services to compensate.
Consumers will bear the whole cost.

Unless the radio company can find an alternative way of cutting costs, such as laying off employees, that do not pass on down the chain. But that would be unlikely. They could cut salaries and paychecks, though.

And I doubt that you do not buy products which are advertised on radio. The costs are disseminated, but almost every bit of it will hit the consumers in the pocket.

Yep, horrible, just horrible. Down the line, Fy'yre might have to pay an additional penny on every third combo meal he eats, because the comglomorate which owns the radio station had to raise the cost of their advertising a miniscule amount to cover the relatively minor increase in their insurance coverage.

My motto is whatever is most cost effective, counting hidden costs, like likelihood of needful replacement in a shortened timespan due to shoddy construction materials. Some things bought cheaply are actually more expensive once you take the 10 year or 20 year view.

I learned that lesson with computer chairs. Every year I was buying 99 dollar ****ty chairs...which died. I figured "Hell, they are only 99 bucks, so I buy a new one".

After about the fifth year I realized that had I spent 500 dollars on a chair, five years ago, I'd have spent the same amount...and still not have to buy a new chair for another 10 years or so heh.

Yep, horrible, just horrible. Down the line, Fy'yre might have to pay an additional penny on every third combo meal he eats, because the comglomorate which owns the radio station had to raise the cost of their advertising a miniscule amount to cover the relatively minor increase in their insurance coverage.

That VAT tax, actually AT because no value is added, is on every single item that you can conceivably buy.

It makes up about half of my lift ticket price I have to pay when I go skiing.

It actually only made up about 2% of the cost of the goods and services that I provided to customers, and they got NOTHING for it in return.

Don't try to minimized the amount of this extraneous cost on society. It were minimal, you would not be defending it so strenuously, for it has to be large enough to pay for every bill and expense of your family's lawfirm.

Every business has liability insurance, to protect themselves from contingency lawyers, and every dime that is paid to them, is taken from consumers against their will. Your truck driver pays almost none of this, even though he is the one at fault for the accident; we, society, end up paying for the lights in your family's lawfirm.

It would make complete and reasonable sense that if people actually wanted the protections, that you say they all want, against accidents, that they would buy insurance to protect THEMSELVES from accidents. Then people would have the choice if they want to pay or not pay. Choice is better, is superior, than force.

You make it sound like trial lawyers are performing some civic service, or something. They're scamming the whole system, that's all it is; they are providing no product, no service. It is just a scam moving money from consumers to insurance companies to trial lawyers.

The dirtiest crackwhore you have ever seen on any dirty downtown street provides a more tangible and noble service, a civic service even if you will, than any trial lawyer does to society.

If your favorite example of evil, the dreaded drunk driver, runs a red light and T-bone's me putting me in a wheel chair for the rest of my life...I deserve more than the cost of the wheel chair.Ironically, in that situation, you probably wouldn't get much of anything. Drunk drivers don't tend to carry insurance or have large assets themselves.California tort reforms, haven't done a damn thing to help Californians. Its made insurance companies happier though.http://www.magmutual.com/mmic/articles/Tort%20Reform%20-%20GA.pdf2003 OB/GYN
Premium Comparison
$1,000,000/$3,000,000
Limit of Insurance

Comparison of 2001-2002
Premium Increases
States With and Without Caps

CITIES WHOSE STATES CAP AWARDS
Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$34,868
Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$37,999
Milwaukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$30,304
Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$43,071
San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . .$40,069
28 states cap awards

CITIES WHOSE STATES DON’T CAP AWARDS
Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$62,148
Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$139,696
Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$119,482
Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$249,196
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$95,837
Miami rate prior to cap effective 9/15/03Tort reform means doctors have to pay less for insurance, which means I pay less for the doctor.

Spare me your propaganda, Aidon. Lower tort awards result in a lower lawyer tax for the rest of us.Frivolous, when speaking about the law, is determined not by me, nor by you, but by a judge.No, it's determined by me when I post a thread about it here. This isn't a courtroom, and we don't go by legal definitions. In here, criminals are criminals too, even though they haven't been convicted.You are truly an evil person. You would rather see people in prison, than see an injured party get paid. Somehow, in your mind, it will benefit anyone to send a CEO to prison, rather than compensating the plaintiff?They're two completely separate things. People should be compensated for economic damages in a civil court. Criminals should be punished by the government in a criminal court.

Yep, horrible, just horrible. Down the line, Fy'yre might have to pay an additional penny on every third combo meal he eats, because the comglomorate which owns the radio station had to raise the cost of their advertising a miniscule amount to cover the relatively minor increase in their insurance coverage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that corporations should not be held responsible for the acts of their employees or their leaders, and I most certainly am not arguing that any company's costs are eventually passed on to their customers. All that is totally fine with me. If we swap the punishment method around a bit, and implement massive fines instead of punitive damages, the company's cost will still be the same, and that cost will be passed on to their customers same as always. And that's fine with me too.

Education is an investment. And I have paid many many times in taxes what the State of California has paid for my education.


I have sued 6 times. And have been sued 3 times, with a couple love letters from lawyers(one of them was a fraternity buddy of mine, ha). I don't understand your point.

I have had to pay over 30K in liability insurance though, over the years, to which not one cent of it was ever needed or recouped. I just passed the cost onto my customers. It was wasted money.


I don't understand this sentence.

You're this bitter because you had to pay 30k in liability insurance, over the years? Are you ****ing kidding me?

Go to the end of the line.

That VAT tax, actually AT because no value is added, is on every single item that you can conceivably buy.

It makes up about half of my lift ticket price I have to pay when I go skiing.

It actually only made up about 2% of the cost of the goods and services that I provided to customers, and they got NOTHING for it in return.

Don't try to minimized the amount of this extraneous cost on society. It were minimal, you would not be defending it so strenuously, for it has to be large enough to pay for every bill and expense of your family's lawfirm.

Every business has liability insurance, to protect themselves from contingency lawyers, and every dime that is paid to them, is taken from consumers against their will. Your truck driver pays almost none of this, even though he is the one at fault for the accident; we, society, end up paying for the lights in your family's lawfirm.

It would make complete and reasonable sense that if people actually wanted the protections, that you say they all want, against accidents, that they would buy insurance to protect THEMSELVES from accidents. Then people would have the choice if they want to pay or not pay. Choice is better, is superior, than force.

You make it sound like trial lawyers are performing some civic service, or something. They're scamming the whole system, that's all it is; they are providing no product, no service. It is just a scam moving money from consumers to insurance companies to trial lawyers.

The dirtiest crackwhore you have ever seen on any dirty downtown street provides a more tangible and noble service, a civic service even if you will, than any trial lawyer does to society.

Oh, just go **** off, you pissant. You're an idiot.

Ironically, in that situation, you probably wouldn't get much of anything. Drunk drivers don't tend to carry insurance or have large assets themselves.http://www.magmutual.com/mmic/articles/Tort%20Reform%20-%20GA.pdfTort reform means doctors have to pay less for insurance, which means I pay less for the doctor.

Spare me your propaganda, Aidon. Lower tort awards result in a lower lawyer tax for the rest of us.No, it's determined by me when I post a thread about it here. This isn't a courtroom, and we don't go by legal definitions. In here, criminals are criminals too, even though they haven't been convicted.They're two completely separate things. People should be compensated for economic damages in a civil court. Criminals should be punished by the government in a criminal court.

No, Tudamorf, you ****ing nimwit, spare me your lies and propaganda.


Like Swiftfox, you seem to swiftly forget that I"ve countered your lies and misreprentations time and again in posts. You can post that same one year difference for one field of medicine, which is an anomoly, all you want. That doesn't change the fact that insurance, both malpractice and health insurance, has continued to rise, sometimes at astronomical rates, even in states with tort reform, nor does alter the fact that roughly 1% of the insurance industry's annual loss has anything to do with torts, nor does make the quotes of people from the insurance industry admitting to such.

Its lies, and your hapless gullible idiot self falls for it wholeheartedly.

You can post that same one year difference for one field of medicine, which is an anomoly, all you want. Anomaly, eh? Here (http://www.calphys.org/assets/applets/micra_savings_2004_la.pdf) is a malpractice premium comparison for every medical field, comparing the premiums in California (which enacted MICRA, a strong tort reform statute, in 1975) with those in Florida, New York, and Michigan.

Look down the line. In almost every case, California's premiums are much lower than the rest, sometimes only a tiny fraction of those in other states.

Across all specialties, the average California premium was $30K versus the $89K average for New York, Florida, and Michigan.

Are all these figures an "anomaly" too?That doesn't change the fact that insurance, both malpractice and health insurance, has continued to rise,Of course they have. Inflation alone will force them to rise. What is your point?Its lies, and your hapless gullible idiot self falls for it wholeheartedly.Then explain why California's premiums are so much lower than those in states without tort reform. Also explain why, pre-MICRA, California's premiums were among the highest in the country.

California's rates are lower than some other states...because they legislated regulations on insurance you stupid git.

Those states which begin to regulate insurance...end up with lower premiums.

By the by, Michigan and Florida both have enacted Tort Reform policies which, by your own admission here, seem to have not worked.

But go ahead, keep parrotting what your told by the insurance companies Tudamorf.

Why would you suppose that tort reform does not include insurance reform?

If we passed a law that put every liability insurance company in California out of business and made it illegal to get liability insurance from outside the state, every trial(contingency) lawyer in the state would move.

You seem to think that the insurance industry is the our only enemy.

Trial(contingency) lawyers AND the insurance industry are equal enemies, and equally evil and destructive to society. Without one, you can't have the other.


By the way, both Canada and the UK have both made it illegal to accept cases on contingency. We should ask both Anka or Thicket(or any other resident) if this has made their society an accident and negligent prone society relative to the US.

You have stated many times that contingency lawyers are providing our society with a service which makes living here less dangerous due to accidents, I doubt that idea immensely(the opposite really).

In terms of reforming this broken system, the insurance industry and the lawyer industry are in cohoots. That is why it is so hard to fix the system.

By the way, both Canada and the UK have both made it illegal to accept cases on contingency.And in the UK, attorney's fees are shifted to the prevailing party, which strongly discourages frivolous lawsuits. Why should the taxpayers bear the burden of these outrageous fees?

The U.S. is a true aberration in terms of the legal system, and we're no safer than Europe or any other first world country. We just have a much higher lawyer tax, putting a drain on our economy, the medical profession, and manufacturing.

Of course we are an aberration.

We possess 70 percent of the entire Earth's lawyers.

One country.

We just have a much higher lawyer tax, putting a drain on our economy, the medical profession, and manufacturing.

You know, that is absolutely true.

And you know, every single one of the lawyers are spending money on people. They buy things. Like Ugg boots for their kids, and Hummers for their wives, and Starbucks coffee every morning. Buying alarm systems from me in my former life.

Or paying for their healthcare now, in my new life.

It is great for the economy, don't get me wrong. I like people making money and spending money. I really do. There should be more rich people, more wealthy people. I LOVE rich people, even when I am poor. I love them.

But the problem is, they don't actually produce anything. They don't make anything. They don't actually provide a service. A beautician cutting your hair makes more than they do, they make you have a haircut you like. It is a product.

If they did, I would have little problem with them sapping away their 40%. They just sap away resources like a tapeworm.

They don't produce anything. There are a few who do produce, and I don't have a problem with those lawyers. For example, if I invented a new medical product, which can save lives. I would need a lawyer to file the papers for the patent, search the patent, help me make the product. That is a service to me, personally. I like those lawyers, they help produce a product.

Why would you suppose that tort reform does not include insurance reform?

If we passed a law that put every liability insurance company in California out of business and made it illegal to get liability insurance from outside the state, every trial(contingency) lawyer in the state would move.

You seem to think that the insurance industry is the our only enemy.

Trial(contingency) lawyers AND the insurance industry are equal enemies, and equally evil and destructive to society. Without one, you can't have the other.

There will always be insurance. Michigan long ago passed no fault insurance laws, eliminating liability in most vehicle accidents. The insurance companies loved it. Now they got to sell insurance to drivers, but couldn't be sued.

I've explained to you, before, what would happen if everyone carried accident insurance to cover themselves (which, actually, most people already do for auto insurance). All it would do is add another law suit.

I have "Oh ****" insurance...and go to your hospital for some surgery. My anesthesiologist (I think I butched that spelling) is addicted to his own drugs and shorts me the pain med, so I wake up on the operating table, but am still paralyzed, and suffer 45 minutes of excrusiating pain before my heart gives out and I die. My estate goes to my "oh ****" insuror, who offers them half as much as what my policy covers, claiming I'm not worth that much. So, my estate is forced to sue the insurance company to cover all of my losses.

After the suit (or even without a suit) my insurance company turns around and sues the Doctor to cover their loss. The Doctor, thus, still has to carry malpractice insurance.

Now, if my estate sued the Doctor, directly, thats one less suit, because the Doctor's insuror cannot sue him for making them fulfill their contractual obligation.

Good job, you're master plan has added a lawsuit and employed another attorney for the same situation =D I like it!


By the way, both Canada and the UK have both made it illegal to accept cases on contingency. We should ask both Anka or Thicket(or any other resident) if this has made their society an accident and negligent prone society relative to the US.

Yes, by all means ask Anka or Thicket. They should tell you that they haven't removed contingency fees. They simply call them conditional fees. God damn, I can't believe that A) Tort Reformists thought people would be so stupid as to fall for that wordplay trick and B) That your dumb ass did. There are some differences, but in 2005, the UK began simplifying the conditional fee laws, making them more like American contingency fees.

Indeed, from what little I've looked into the matter, it seems the UK has a goal of making conditional fees the primary fee structure for civil litigation, not merely the tort system, as in the US. Divorce, contracts, probate...
You have stated many times that contingency lawyers are providing our society with a service which makes living here less dangerous due to accidents, I doubt that idea immensely(the opposite really).

In terms of reforming this broken system, the insurance industry and the lawyer industry are in cohoots. That is why it is so hard to fix the system.

You're an idiot.

Who the **** do you think is the primary proponents of tort reform? Insurance companies, you gullible ass. They love the idea. They get to pay out less...and don't have to lower their rates. In cohoots, that's rich.

The insurance industry hates lawyers with a passion. Attorneys are the only thing which stands in the path of these monolithic insurance companies. The Insurance industry is the most powerful industry in our nation. Big Oil pales in comparison to the political control Insurance wields.

Personally, I find it mind boggling, and always have, that libertarian minded people, who are so gung ho against governmental regulation, have been suckered in and duped into backing increase governmental regulation of torts, which are primarily there to protect individuals from the actions of others and ensure that the responsible parties fulfill their obligations.

Now, I know I've just wasted 15 minutes of my life here, because no matter how logically I explain things to Tort reformists like Tudamorf and Fy'yr...no matter how many times I disprove their misconceptions and show them how they are being duped, they will not believe it.

Its willful disbelief. They want to hate attorneys so badly, they don't care if logic, history, and common sense shows them they are wrong.

Of course we are an aberration.

We possess 70 percent of the entire Earth's lawyers.

One country.

That's because you don't get to sue people in Iran and Lebanon and Syria, much of south america, china, most of africa, and much of Asia. Your option is to buy off the right person in the goverment, or suck it up.

How about Canada, or Japan, or England, or Germany?

I don't give a fck about legal problems in third world countries, no more than any contingency lawyers do.

I am not even talking per capita.

We have 70 percent of the Earth's lawyers.

You have got a lot, a LOT, of convincing to do, to convince me that we are better off because we have the majority of the entire planets lawyers in our country.

You have got to be shtting me.

And in the UK, attorney's fees are shifted to the prevailing party, which strongly discourages frivolous lawsuits. Why should the taxpayers bear the burden of these outrageous fees?

The U.S. is a true aberration in terms of the legal system, and we're no safer than Europe or any other first world country. We just have a much higher lawyer tax, putting a drain on our economy, the medical profession, and manufacturing.

the lack of knowledge spewing forth from you two is astonishing on a whole new level.

And I suppose Santa Claus delivers presents to all the little injured children too...

Further, Britain is moving closer and closer to having contingency fees almost identical to the US, because they are finding that people are not receiving just and sufficient compensation and that their conditional fees still restrict access to many less wealthy people (i'm not sufficiently aware of the details of their system to know how that is).

I can't believe you fools think that removing contingency fees will reduce tort litigation.

It will increase it, almost certainly, as attorneys would get paid regardless of the outcome of the case, thus providing no benefit for screening cases for merit. Attorneys regularly refuse cases they don't feel has merit, because its a waste of time. If we go to a system with attorneys will get paid, regardless, they'll happily file a claim for anyone with the bucks.

Damn fools.

Now, I know I've just wasted 15 minutes of my life here, because no matter how logically I explain things to Tort reformists like Tudamorf and Fy'yr...no matter how many times I disprove their misconceptions and show them how they are being duped, they will not believe it.You make lots of statements, but provide little proof.

If you show me proof that Americans are safer than Europeans, proof that tort reform does not lower insurance premiums or taxpayer costs, and proof that personal injury lawyers are worth their cost to society, I might believe you.

Your arguments are counter-intuitive, plus you make your living off the industry so you have a strong conscious and unconscious bias in favor of it. You can't honestly expect us to accept your opinion on faith.

Yes, by all means ask Anka or Thicket. They should tell you that they haven't removed contingency fees. They simply call them conditional fees.

What's "contingency fees"? If it's "If we win I get x%" then that's absolutely illegal here nomatter what you call them.

I can't believe you fools think that removing contingency fees will reduce tort litigation.

It will increase it, almost certainly, as attorneys would get paid regardless of the outcome of the case

Would YOU go to a lawyer with a dodgy case if you had to pay him for his work nomatter what, AND the most you stood to gain was your financial loss repaired?

What's "contingency fees"? If it's "If we win I get x%" then that's absolutely illegal here nomatter what you call them.Yes, it's those fees, that are peculiar to the American/English (sort of)/Canadian (in parts) system of law.

Generally, in America, you can charge up to 33% or 40% of the recovery in certain types of cases, most notably personal injury cases. There are lots of rules and special limitations in states with tort reform, but that's the general idea.

The perverse incentives such a system creates, when combined with multi-million dollar jury awards as the norm, should be obvious.

Despite the mass media coverage, I was always under the impression that corporate lawyers vastly outnumbered the personal injury and other civil case lawyers. Corporate lawyers meaning not the guys that protect the company from lawsuits, but the guys who set up mergers and acquisitions (M&A), deal with patent and patent violations, copyrights, etc, etc.

While I'm sure there are a lot of large firms based on personal injury and criminal defense, I'm pretty sure most of the top ten law firms in NYC are corporate legal teams like I described above (ie: lawyers that are closer to accountants than lawyers from "The Practice" or "Boston Legal" type shows).

In a M&A case, I think my old firm's percentage was something like 10% of the value of the M&A. So if it was a $5 billion merger... well you get the idea.

Further, Britain is moving closer and closer to having contingency fees almost identical to the US, because they are finding that people are not receiving just and sufficient compensation and that their conditional fees still restrict access to many less wealthy people (i'm not sufficiently aware of the details of their system to know how that is).

Don't you dare believe that! There are very strong opinions in our parliament against ambulance chasing leeches. If sucessful claimants are not receiving fair compensation then that would be a failure of the judiciary in determining awards, wouldn't it, as the legal costs are picked up by the losing party?

You make lots of statements, but provide little proof.

If you show me proof that Americans are safer than Europeans, proof that tort reform does not lower insurance premiums or taxpayer costs, and proof that personal injury lawyers are worth their cost to society, I might believe you.

Your arguments are counter-intuitive, plus you make your living off the industry so you have a strong conscious and unconscious bias in favor of it. You can't honestly expect us to accept your opinion on faith.

Go dig up my old posts yourself then. I've cited and quotes my sources regarding the growth of premiums, in spite of tort reform, more than once on here.

To compare the Amercian system to the European system is so simplistic as to beg the question of who would actually fall for such a comparison.

Our very economic systems are different. We live in a welfare capitalist society, where the government will try to provide the bare minimum for those who cannot afford otherwise. Most European nations are socialist nations where the government provides far more benefit than in the US. There is less need for torts when injury done to a person incurs little economic damage, because the State provides full and equal medical coverage for all and provides sufficiently for their disable to not merely live, but to live in comfort.

Essentially, damages in socialist countries would focus almost solely around future lost wage differential and "intangibles" such as pain and suffering. There are no medical costs and the base difference between "unemployed on disability" and "making a decent living working your job" is significantly less than the base difference between being on Social Security and Medicaid in the US and making a decent living in the US.

If you want to get rid of medical malpractice, for instance, the quickest way to do so is to nationalize medicine and have the Government regulate doctors who commit malpractice.

If you want to greatly reduce the cost of personal injury claims, again, nationalize medicine and make disability sufficient to provide a comfortable life, so that a person who is injured through the negligence of someone else, doesn't have a choice of living in poverty via social security with the worst medical care in our nation...or suing someone so that perhaps they can get their meds paid for, and have compensation for their loss of income.

Even so...as I said, Britian is moving close to our pure contingency fee system, as they've come to realize that even their conditional fee system serves as a barrier to access for the impovrished.

Don't you dare believe that! There are very strong opinions in our parliament against ambulance chasing leeches. If sucessful claimants are not receiving fair compensation then that would be a failure of the judiciary in determining awards, wouldn't it, as the legal costs are picked up by the losing party?

No, actually, don't you dare believe whatever the hell you believe.

The loser pays system in Britain was broken (and didn't work exactly like most folks seem to think it works. Conditional Fee Agreements permit for a base fee to be charged and then an additional fee to be charged upon success. Only that additional fee was "loser pays") Insurance companies were exploiting every little question of fact and law in order to delay their payment of that additional fee (and indeed, payment of the base award, itself) and refusing to admit liability, even when obvious, until the last possible moment. The Conditional fee agreement laws were ridiculous complex and had actually spawned a secondary industry of people to act as intermediaries between claimants and solicitors. All in all, the British system, so far as I can tell, moved from a system where the claimant paid solicitors a standard fee, and the Governments subsidized those unable to pay for solicitors themselves, to a conditional fee agreement method, which is much closer to a contingency fee agreement.

I must say, though, that I find it amusing to see Tudamorf complaining about American tort..while reading about 4.5 million pound malpractice awards issued by judges in Britian in 2005...lets see, that is around, what, 11 million dollars, roughly?

There is less need for torts when injury done to a person incurs little economic damage, because the State provides full and equal medical coverage for all and provides sufficiently for their disable to not merely live, but to live in comfort.Economic damages don't drive the personal injury system, and you know it.If you want to get rid of medical malpractice, for instance, the quickest way to do so is to nationalize medicine and have the Government regulate doctors who commit malpractice.So if the state of California succeeds in providing the proposed universal health care coverage, you'd agree that we could do away with medical malpractice, since California already regulates medical malpractice. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.If you want to greatly reduce the cost of personal injury claims, again, nationalize medicine and make disability sufficient to provide a comfortable life, so that a person who is injured through the negligence of someone else, doesn't have a choice of living in poverty via social security with the worst medical care in our nation...or suing someone so that perhaps they can get their meds paid for, and have compensation for their loss of income.You're drifting back into economic damages. But I (and everyone on this thread, I think) already agrees that economic damages should be awarded in a lawsuit.

All in all, the British system, so far as I can tell, moved from a system where the claimant paid solicitors a standard fee, and the Governments subsidized those unable to pay for solicitors themselves, to a conditional fee agreement method, which is much closer to a contingency fee agreement.

The main change to the conditional fee arrangements were 10-15 years ago and at first they were badly sold with insurance, as you mentioned. Any changes since then have been corrections to an industry that was exploiting its clients. We are not moving in any way towards class action suits or percentage based fees, thankfully. Judges size the damages. There are no punitive damages. A great deal of compensation is settled through government awards without legal action. The last thing that anyone in the UK wants to hear is that the country is going to move towards a US based litigation system.

I must say, though, that I find it amusing to see Tudamorf complaining about American tort..while reading about 4.5 million pound malpractice awards issued by judges in Britian in 2005...lets see, that is around, what, 11 million dollars, roughly?

There are some high awards now. Those are typically for fatalities or injuries that need full time nursing, not for a woman getting spanked at a training course, say.

What's "contingency fees"? If it's "If we win I get x%" then that's absolutely illegal here nomatter what you call them.

In Britain, it goes "If we win, I get [X * (normal fees I'm charging you regardless if I win or lose)]"

In the US is goes "If we win, I get X% (25-40 depending on the type of claim and the custom and practice of the area) of the award".

The reason its illegal, in many European nations, is because it used to be considered "Champerty", but in the 19th century, the US removed that prohibition because it was evident that the only people who were able to afford access to the justice system, were the wealthy.

If Bob's little boy John was run over by a delivery truck for Big City Steel, Bob simply couldn't afford to hire an attorney, since attorneys were not allowed to defer payment until after the matter was settled.

Economic damages don't drive the personal injury system, and you know it.

Yes, yes they do, actually. It depends, heavily, on the nature of the injury and the situation. For instance, in the FELA work my father does, virtually all of the money comes from future lost wages.

In your standard auto accident, the rule of thumb is 5 times medical damages, as settlement. A large part of that is because insurance companies, with regularity, undervalue medical costs, regardless of what the medical costs actually were. Further, despite your arguments, pain and suffering and loss of consortium are valid claims with a long history in common law.

So if the state of California succeeds in providing the proposed universal health care coverage, you'd agree that we could do away with medical malpractice, since California already regulates medical malpractice. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.You're drifting back into economic damages. But I (and everyone on this thread, I think) already agrees that economic damages should be awarded in a lawsuit.

Not eliminated...but changed to a system more similar to how Britain does their malpractice (which, at first blush, is somewhat confusing. I'll have to look into it further).

There must always be recourse for those who have been injured negligently, but when the state guarantees sufficient medical care, then, obviously, the costs associated with injuries are reduced (Unless the Government begins seeking subrogation for health costs caused by negligence, in which case, they've just opened the door again).

The main change to the conditional fee arrangements were 10-15 years ago and at first they were badly sold with insurance, as you mentioned. Any changes since then have been corrections to an industry that was exploiting its clients.

The recent changes were to simplify a great many things, were implemented last year, and one of the suggestions proposed in the bill was to begin implementing limited contingency fees for those who could not afford even the conditional fees, since the government, as a result of implementing the conditional fee, had eliminated public subsidy of claims (that suggestion was rejected by the House of Lords...but it was still out there and will, almost certainly, continue to be considered, as more and more people are unable to find just compensation for their claims).

We are not moving in any way towards class action suits

Class action suits have zero to do with contingency fees or Torts, other than they are a tort and use a contingency fee basis. To combat class action suits via overall tort reform is like using a hammer to swat a fly.

or percentage based fees, thankfully. Judges size the damages. There are no punitive damages. A great deal of compensation is settled through government awards without legal action. The last thing that anyone in the UK wants to hear is that the country is going to move towards a US based litigation system.

See, though, the same people who stand for Tort reform, in the US, would also stand against goverment awards and would complain of "activist" judges the first time a judge issued a million dollar award.

Britain has a different system...a very different system.

Oh, and don't say "anyone" for there are plenty of folks in the UK who think a contingency fee system would be useful.

The problem in Britain is that the insurance industry has promulgated this myth that all sorts of people are at risk fo being sued out of house and home already, and that it will just get worse if they allow contingency fees. Fortunately, the House of Lords pretty much stated that this myth is, indeed, just a myth.



There are some high awards now. Those are typically for fatalities or injuries that need full time nursing, not for a woman getting spanked at a training course, say.[/QUOTE]

If Bob's little boy John was run over by a delivery truck for Big City Steel, Bob simply couldn't afford to hire an attorney, since attorneys were not allowed to defer payment until after the matter was settled.

This still seems to be the case when fighting corporate lawsuits.

Here's a quote from someone whose work has been recognised on these boards before ...

"It's a bit of a mismatched battle. We haven't got any financial resources behind us and they're an enormous multi-national behemoth," said Mr Veitch.

"The risk is that if we do take it to court, there's every possibility that they may just drag it out until we're bankrupt."

It was also unclear whether any legal case would be heard in the UK, where the music video originated, or Argentina, where the TV commercial was made, the 32-year-old added.

"Spending many thousands of pounds on a lawyer on the other side of the world to fight a case in a different language, while we're all trying to hold down our day jobs and pay a mortgage, sounds a bit difficult really.

"But if we could do it on a no-win, no-fee basis in England, we'd be laughing," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6228635.stm

The problem in Britain is that the insurance industry has promulgated this myth that all sorts of people are at risk fo being sued out of house and home already, and that it will just get worse if they allow contingency fees.

It has f**k all to do with insurance companies. The people I meet every day don't want excessive litigation.

There must always be recourse for those who have been injured negligently, but when the state guarantees sufficient medical care, then, obviously, the costs associated with injuries are reduced (Unless the Government begins seeking subrogation for health costs caused by negligence, in which case, they've just opened the door again).Why? You just said the the Europeans can do just fine with their system because they have socialist governments who provide health care for all citizens.

If California provides health cares to all of its citizens, why does it need to retain a lawyer tax?

If California provides health cares to all of its citizens, why does it need to retain a lawyer tax?

Some injuries cannot be covered by extra health care. Death, for example.

Some injuries cannot be covered by extra health care. Death, for example.That can be covered by life insurance, if you wish.

Or, is it common in European countries to hand out $250,000 to the next of kin every time someone dies?

That can be covered by life insurance, if you wish.

Or, is it common in European countries to hand out $250,000 to the next of kin every time someone dies?

The countries typically underwrite themselves and carry no insurance. Citizens are not expected to have insurance against the negligence of the state.

Some injuries cannot be covered by extra health care. Death, for example.

People buy coverage for their own accidents, accidents which befall them, all the time.

Lloyd's of London has been doing it, providing the service, for centuries.

Besides putting Aidon's family business out of business, if people want that level of protection for injury, then they should buy it themselves. Not expect third parties, people who you have never met, to carry insurance for YOUR injury.

The countries typically underwrite themselves and carry no insurance. Citizens are not expected to have insurance against the negligence of the state.Who said anything about negligence of the state?

Aidon claims we need our ridiculous legal system because we do not have a socialist system like European countries. His theory is that Europeans provide well for their citizens already, so if you're a victim of negligence the state will care for you without the necessity of a lawsuit.

My response is, do European countries offer mega rewards to people who die (NOT as a result of the state's negligence)? If not, then why do we need it?

There's always life insurance for any particular individual who wants to insure against death.

My response is, do European countries offer mega rewards to people who die (NOT as a result of the state's negligence)? If not, then why do we need it?

You don't. What are you talking about? Explain yourself instead of making a series of vaguely related posts and expecting people to understand your gist.

I realize this is late, but here is my view on the 2 cases from the original post. Not the pandering that followed.

As for the girl on myspace that was sexually assaulted. There was a third party involved and directly responsible for what happened, i.e. the guy who drugged and raped her. He should be held accountable for what happened and not Myspace, as Myspace is not directly responsible for the crime. The guy used myspace as a tool to commit this crime. As far as I know you can't sue a gun manufacturer if someone is shot, puposefully or accidently, by their product. You sue and/or imprison the person who pulled the trigger. Blaming Myspace is the same as blaming the gun manufacturer. Obviously the owners of the website have deeper pockets than the rapist, that does mean the blame or responsibility lies with them. In my opinion, these people are motivated more by the dollar signs they see, rather than the negative feelings they possess, resulting from the rape or assault of their child.

As for the water drinking contest, a different standard should apply. Yes this woman could have been ignorant of the problems associated with drinking too much water. That does not excuse the radio station's actions or their inaction. They knew there were risks involved, for which they are DIRECTLY responsible, and apparently did little or nothing to remedy the situation or prevent it from occuring in the first place. If you knowingly lead a blind man off a cliff, you are responsible for the death. Trying to say it was her stupidity that caused the death is the same as saying it was the blind man's fault he fell. These radio station's have lawyers. Were they not consulted?

You don't. What are you talking about? Explain yourself instead of making a series of vaguely related posts and expecting people to understand your gist.My post will make sense if you read Aidon's post.

Cliff's notes:

Tudamorf: "We have too high a lawyer tax, compared to Europe."
Aidon: "No you **** we need those lawyers, they make us safer."
Tudamorf: "Prove we're safer than Europeans, thanks to the tort system."
Aidon: *shrug* "Well the Europeans can only get away with their system because they're socialists who pay for all injuries no matter what, so a victim doesn't have to rely on a lawsuit."
Tudamorf: "California is about to adopt universal health care. Does that mean we can do away with personal injury lawyers here, since we'll be all Euro-like?"
Anka: "Well, what about death?"
Tudamorf: "What about it? Do European governments pay people money when they die?"
Anka: "No."
Tudamorf: "Then why do we need to?"
Anka: "You don't."

Thank you, point proven.

If you knowingly lead a blind man off a cliff, you are responsible for the death.No, this case is more like leading a sighted man off a cliff.Trying to say it was her stupidity that caused the death is the same as saying it was the blind man's fault he fell.If the blind man wasn't paying attention to where he was going, perhaps it was.

At the risk of derailing this discussion I have a question.

If I get ticketed for speeing I have to pay a fine. Who should receive that money?

I think everybody here agrees it should go to the state, not to the officer writing the ticket. Not to the other people driving on the same road and not to the people living along that road.

After all the ticket is not to cover for damage nor is it some kind of punishment. It is an incentive for me not to drive over the speed limit since apparently law and common sense were not enough deterrent.

The same really applies to punitive damages.
And the fine should go to the same receiver for much the same reasons.

As for the height of the damages awarded, that should be either a standard table, or it should be argued clearly what exactly the damages are paying for, but they should be directly related to the actual injuries. E.g. to cover the expenses of hospital, revalidation, adjusting a home for disabilities, loss of income, loss of projected income, and so on. Emotional distress is not a ground to hand out a million dollar, but a number of sessions with a qualified psychologists to recover from traumatic experiences can be awarded.

Personally I am much in favour of having a standard table for payments with the judge having some discretionary power to expand or lower the payment under exceptional circumstances (should those circumstances be proven in court of course).

But then, I am lucky enough to live in a country that has a system much like that already.


Eri

Eri,

Punitive damages should not go the plaintiff and the plaintiffs lawyers, I agree with you.

If they should be allowed at all, is another topic.

Punitive damages are a bad idea to begin with. We do not allow armed private vigilantes to go around dispensing physical justice, and for the same reasons, we should not allow private lawyer vigilantes to go around dispensing financial justice.

Punishing people is the role of the state, through its penal system, not lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes.

If there is a system of punitive damages, it should be like California's, where the state takes 75% off the top and fully taxes the remainder. The plaintiff and lawyer should only get a token amount, if any of it.

Punishing people is the role of the state, through its penal system, not lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes.

qft

It has f**k all to do with insurance companies. The people I meet every day don't want excessive litigation.

...noone wants excessive litigation.

Granted...there is no excessive litigation here.

Excessive litigation is a myth promulgated by insurance.

Would YOU go to a lawyer with a dodgy case if you had to pay him for his work nomatter what, AND the most you stood to gain was your financial loss repaired?

...would an attorney take a dodgy case if he had to spend time, effort, and money on it that he most likely would not see back because it's a loser?

The fact is, there is a very good reason we moved to contingency fees in the US. Access to the civil justice system should not be reserved for those who can afford to pay for it.

Now, in most European nations, the government either A) subsidizes the claims of low income claimaints who could not afford to avail themselves of the justice system otherwise, or B) Are moving closer to a contingency fee basis.

Let me assure you, if the US changed to flat fee or conditional fee based litigation across the board, tomorrow, it wouldn't harm plaintiff's bar in the slightest (other than the annoyance of having to track hours spent per case) and in some instances, especially for older attorneys, they would almost certainly begin making more money, as they could charge quite a bit per hour.

It would, however, make it so that (like much in America) only the wealthy could actually avail themselves of Justice.

You can be certain, though, that those same people who rally for Tort Reform (other than some gullible sheep, like Tudamorf) are the same people who would stand vehemently opposed to the Goverment subsidizing legal action for those who could not afford it.

Why? You just said the the Europeans can do just fine with their system because they have socialist governments who provide health care for all citizens.

If California provides health cares to all of its citizens, why does it need to retain a lawyer tax?

Oh shut up with the "lawyer tax" bull****, you insipid moron. Spewing forth the sound bytes provided to you by the Inurance industry and the GOP will not make your asininities any more valid.

I said the Europeans are able to use their system because they are socialist.

Socialism goes beyond universal health care.

From their unemployment, disability, and medical coverage to their government sponsorship of claims for those who cannot afford to pay the attorney's fee, socialism incorporates itself into every aspect of the economic fabric of a society.

Tort Reformists, though, want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to pay the little taxes, make the crazy insurance industry money, live in lassez faire capitalism, and eliminate any responsibility they may have to operate in a reasonably safe manner, which may lose them money.

If a few poor folk happen to lose a mother, or limb along the way, that's just they price to be paid for making the rich richer, neh?

A modern society demands social justice. In a Capitalist, competative economy, disputes are, necessarily, settled in the court system via litigation (or the threat thereof). In a Socialist society, there are other means to settle disputes and seek compensation for loss, but they including a level of government involvement and interference most Americans would not find acceptable.

In the end, it wouldn't matter to attorneys. There will always, always, be a need for highly educated people with the knowledge of how to navigate the law, regardless of the economic system, so long as the law is not arbitrary, as such that job will always demand good pay, just a Doctor makes good money regardless of whether his country provides health coverage or an Insurance industry.

People buy coverage for their own accidents, accidents which befall them, all the time.

Lloyd's of London has been doing it, providing the service, for centuries.

Besides putting Aidon's family business out of business, if people want that level of protection for injury, then they should buy it themselves. Not expect third parties, people who you have never met, to carry insurance for YOUR injury.

You get insurance to cover accidents, yes.

But when that accident is directly caused by the negligence of another party, you shouldn't have to pay for it, and you can be certainly your insurance company will not pay for it in the end.

I rather suspect Lloyd's of London has been suing people for negligent action for centuries now.

You're willful continuing refusal to acknowledge that your idea is childish in its naiveity, despite having it explained to you repeatedly, is indicative that in the end, you're like so much of America..and just damn stupid.

You know full well, I'm right. If you forced everyone to carry their own insurance...it would do nothing but provide a windfall of income for insurance companies.

You get insurance to cover accidents, yes.
Glad we agree.

But when that accident is directly caused by the negligence of another party, you shouldn't have to pay for it, and you can be certainly your insurance company will not pay for it in the end.
All accidents are caused by negligence. Otherwise they would be called 'on purposes' instead.

I don't have a contract with you. I don't know you. If I set a pallet down on the ground, and you trip over it, it is your own damn fault you fvcking moronic klutz. I have no duty to protect you from your own stupid mistakes.

If you hurt your leg on my pallet, go fvcking cry to your own insurance company, and keep your scum sucking parasite lawyers out of my rectum.

I rather suspect Lloyd's of London has been suing people for negligent action for centuries now.
So what.

You're willful continuing refusal to acknowledge that your idea is childish in its naiveity, despite having it explained to you repeatedly, is indicative that in the end, you're like so much of America..and just damn stupid.
It is a great idea, because it puts all of the bottom dwelling ambulance chasers out of business.

You know full well, I'm right. If you forced everyone to carry their own insurance...it would do nothing but provide a windfall of income for insurance companies.
I know you are saying this because if contingency leaches were put out of business, it might hurt your family business' profit.

It would be predictable. It would be a contracted agreement between two parties. Not some implied service that I must provide to you, even though I don't know you, and would probably not like you if I did.

You are telling me that I have to work for you, without me ever meeting you. I think that is slavery. I don't want to work for you without payment, or without a prior agreement. I am not your slave, and you should not have the power to tell me what I must do for you.



I am not asking for a perfect world, in a perfect world, I would be able to smash both your kneecaps with a ballpeen hammer for being so stupid to trip and fall over my pallet in the first place. But I am not asking for that.

Excessive litigation is a myth promulgated by insurance.

In my country the large payers of compensation claims are government or council bodies. They typically underwrite themselves and carry no insurance. Compensation claims are paid for by higher taxation or cuts in public services. Taxpayers do see for themselves the truth of litigation.

Punitive damages are a bad idea to begin with. We do not allow armed private vigilantes to go around dispensing physical justice, and for the same reasons, we should not allow private lawyer vigilantes to go around dispensing financial justice.

Punishing people is the role of the state, through its penal system, not lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes.

If there is a system of punitive damages, it should be like California's, where the state takes 75% off the top and fully taxes the remainder. The plaintiff and lawyer should only get a token amount, if any of it.

You ****ers are scary.

You just love to toss people in prison. Better to imprison people, than, God forbid, someone get money, you jealous petty pieces of ****.

As for your vigilante, spiel.

Do not forget, ever, that the civil court system, like the criminal system, is a part of the government set forth in our constitution. Vigilante lawyers...very nice little soundbyte, who'd you hear that one from?

No, it is not attorneys who dispense justice, but courts and juries. Attorneys cannot make the laws. Attorneys cannot force anyone to settlement. Attorneys can only present cases before judges and juries.

Everytime you see a multi-million dollar verdict...remember, a jury of our peers came to that decision. Everytime you see a multi-million dollar settlement, remember, it was a mutual agreement between both parties and if the defendant didn't feel he was at a very real risk of losing even more money from a Jury verdict, he would not have entered into the settlement.

Just because you, with your astounding lack of knowledge due to your inability to see the evidence proffered the Jury, have determined in your hubris to have any idea what is appropriate for the case, does not, in any way, denote even a smidgeon of accuracy on your misguided part.

In my country the large payers of compensation claims are government or council bodies. They typically underwrite themselves and carry no insurance. Compensation claims are paid for by higher taxation or cuts in public services. Taxpayers do see for themselves the truth of litigation.

Interesting, then, that the Government, itself, came to the conclusion that the "compensation culture" is a myth.

The House of Lords, actually.

Interesting, then, that the Government, itself, came to the conclusion that the "compensation culture" is a myth.

Really? Let me quote our Lord Chancellor, who is the relevant government minister.

Lord Falconer's strategy document said his department would also tackle the compensation culture and law firms who try to woo people into lodging unjustified claims.

"When someone is injured, there is not always the right to claim damages," he said. "Where there is no blame, there should be no claim."

"We will make it clear that the law allows compensation only where the defender was culpable. We will work with schools, hospitals, local authorities, insurers, voluntary sector organisations, businesses and the legal professions to drive out the compensation culture."

Drive out the compensation culture? Seems like he's got a clear idea in his mind there. If you're not convinced then how about our 2006 NHS Redress Bill that aimed to provide a statutory system of awards?

Health Minister Jane Kennedy said the Bill would, “mean fairness for patients, not fees for lawyers. It is an important step in preventing a US-style litigation culture.”

Oh shut up with the "lawyer tax" bull****, you insipid moron.You'd have to be a fool to believe there's no lawyer tax. Lawyers are getting paid, billions of dollars every year. That money doesn't come out of thin air.

The only real debate here is whether the amount of the tax is justified, not whether it exists.From their unemployment, disability, and medical coverage to their government sponsorship of claims for those who cannot afford to pay the attorney's fee, socialism incorporates itself into every aspect of the economic fabric of a society.Californians have state-sponsored unemployment and disability systems. If we adopt universal health coverage, we'd be socialist too, by your definition.You ****ers are scary.

You just love to toss people in prison. Better to imprison people, than, God forbid, someone get money, you jealous petty pieces of ****.Who said anything about prison?

Governments can fine, too. Or take away rights other than freedom of movement.Everytime you see a multi-million dollar verdict...remember, a jury of our peers came to that decision.Juries are not my peers. They are a dozen bumbling fools who were either too stupid to evade service, or insecure powerless people thirsting for some authority over others.

My peers would never, ever be on a jury panel.Everytime you see a multi-million dollar settlement, remember, it was a mutual agreement between both parties and if the defendant didn't feel he was at a very real risk of losing even more money from a Jury verdict, he would not have entered into the settlement.Exactly. It's economic extortion.Just because you, with your astounding lack of knowledge due to your inability to see the evidence proffered the Jury, have determined in your hubris to have any idea what is appropriate for the case, does not, in any way, denote even a smidgeon of accuracy on your misguided part.Even after you recite to me the most pro-lawyer biased version of the facts of certain cases (e.g., the McDonald's coffee woman), I remain unconvinced.

All accidents are caused by negligence. Otherwise they would be called 'on purposes' instead.

I can see that you have forgotten the definition of negligence, despite having it explained to you, at length, by both Scirocco and myself. A refresher, then, though I do hate rehashing old information.

NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.

You can have an accident in which neither party was negligent. It happens all the time. If I'm driving down the road and the bumper of my brand new Jeep falls off and smashes into your car, I am not negligent (barring a statutory negligence of strict liability which might exist for a given situation, i.e. California, if I recall, has statutorily decided that if something you are transporting via vehicle falls off of your vehicle and hits another vehicle, by law, you are to be held liable, even you undertook reasonable care in the means with which you secured the item). Jeep, on the other hand, is most likely negligent in not ensuring the vehicle was securely assembled, for instance (this is a very very basic example which ignores various potential complications).

Another example. If you are walking up my driveway in Ohio on a snowy and icey day and slip and fall, unless there was "an unnatural accumulation" (such as a buildup of ice due to a broken downspout) which you slipped on, I am not liable for your accident, because I have not been negligent. However, if the proximal cause of your accident was, indeed, an unnatural accumulation (say I had decided to carve an ice sculpture in my driveway and it had partially melted and then refroze, creating a slippery mound), then I failed to use reasonable care in clearing an unnatural accumulation of ice from my driveway and I can be held liable for your accident.

It was an accident in either case. Noone intended on falling. I did not seek to make you fall down and harm yourself. There was no intent. If there had been intent to harm you, on my part, not only am I liable, but my actions have crossed into criminality. (Criminal intent is not just a bad Law and Order spin off).



I don't have a contract with you. I don't know you. If I set a pallet down on the ground, and you trip over it, it is your own damn fault you fvcking moronic klutz. I have no duty to protect you from your own stupid mistakes.

You have a basic contract, as part of our society, to act with reasonable care. Its part of the fabric of our society for centuries now. You cannot act with indifference towards the safety of those around you. You're the one who loves social contracts, remember?

If you set a pallet down on the ground in a hallway with poor lighting and dont' tell anyone, and I then trip over it, its not my damn fault, you ****ing moronic putz. Its your fault. Reaonable people would agree that setting a ****ing pallet down in a hallway in the dark and not warning people, is the mark of someone who is either stupid, or callous, either way, though, your actions are negligent.

If you hurt your leg on my pallet, go fvcking cry to your own insurance company, and keep your scum sucking parasite lawyers out of my rectum.

If you put the pallet down in bright light where it was easy to see, then I might agree with you (again, everything depends on the circumstances...did you put the pallet down and then ask me to carry a stack of boxes, which inhibited my ability to see where I was going, down that very hallway, without warning me that you put a pallet there? Then I'll sue you, because your actions were ridiculous unsafe bordering on the criminal if motive could be found for why you'd want me to fall and maybe break my neck.)

It is a great idea, because it puts all of the bottom dwelling ambulance chasers out of business.

First of all, chasing ambulances is illegal. Attorneys cannot solicit a person for business. The client has to approach the attorney. Of course, you know this, I'm sure and are just willfully ignoring it. Secondly, it wouldn't put anyone out of business. You really are a tool. I've explained why, again and again, sitting there repeating yourself will not change the underlying situation. All that would happen is it would change the focus of the lawsuit. You can see it now, with uninsured/underinsured car insurance policies. Your insuror never...ever...ever wants to pay you what you think you are due, unless the monies in question are so far beyond the policy limits that it brooks no argument. Thus, people frequently are forced to sue their own insurance companies.


I know you are saying this because if contingency leaches were put out of business, it might hurt your family business' profit.

First of all, most tort reform is done on a state level. The areas of practice our firm deals with almost exclusively fall under federal law (substantively, at least, which I'm not going to bother explaining). If Ohio, tomorrow, enacted some of your idiot policies, it would barely hurt our firm, as it wouldn't effect the FELA, nor would it effect federal interstate trucking regulations. Secondly, even if we were more heavily involved with state litigation (standard car accidents, etc), it would most likely have little long term impact on our profits and, indeed, would actually create some benefit, as it would ensure a regular flow of income from hourly billing, rather than the office having to work around indeterminate periods without a settlement or verdict, as is wont to happen.

What would happen, however, is that we'd be forced to take fewer cases from folks unable to meet the retainer or able to pay the hourly rate.

Sorry, Fy'yr, your plain wrong. Oh, and I'd calm down with the insults regarding my family, or I'll stop playing nice. My father has worked hard for over thirty years to build a successful business which employs from 12 to 20 people during any given year. He's an honest hardworking man who is generous with his time and money. He pays his taxes, gives yet more away to various charities, and more importantly, helps the little guy stand up for his rights against monolithic industries, such as the railroads, who've a long history of abusing their authority over their workers.

It would be predictable. It would be a contracted agreement between two parties. Not some implied service that I must provide to you, even though I don't know you, and would probably not like you if I did.

Guess what, Fy'yr, living in our society consists of inumberable implied services. Not that taking reasonable care is a service...its an expectation. Its a responsibility every person in our society has.

You are telling me that I have to work for you, without me ever meeting you. I think that is slavery. I don't want to work for you without payment, or without a prior agreement. I am not your slave, and you should not have the power to tell me what I must do for you.

Wow...your train of thought is so off the wall to call it absurd would be doing an injustice to absurdies the world over.

It can only be described as bat-**** crazy.

Slavery? Its slavery to expect you to act with reasonable care? ****, man.

I don't have a prior agreement to not shoot my mailman, either. In Fy'yr bizzaro world, evidently, that absolves me of any fiscal responsibility should I decide to shoot my mailman.




I am not asking for a perfect world, in a perfect world, I would be able to smash both your kneecaps with a ballpeen hammer for being so stupid to trip and fall over my pallet in the first place. But I am not asking for that.[/QUOTE]

Really? Let me quote our Lord Chancellor, who is the relevant government minister.



Drive out the compensation culture? Seems like he's got a clear idea in his mind there. If you're not convinced then how about our 2006 NHS Redress Bill that aimed to provide a statutory system of awards?

Have you read the House of Lords statement or edict or whatever the **** you call it, regarding that bill? Where they explicitly state that they agree with the committee's finding that there is no "compensation culture" and that its largely a myth?

No, of course not, you're a baffoon who goes off the soundbytes of politicians =D

You'd have to be a fool to believe there's no lawyer tax. Lawyers are getting paid, billions of dollars every year. That money doesn't come out of thin air.

Garbage men are paid billions of dollars every year too. Is there a garbage tax then? (here, we pay private companies for garbage pickup).

Disney makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year...is there a Disney tax?

World of Warcraft is bringing in about 360 million dollars a year from US subscriptions alone (assuming 2 million subscribers @ 15/mo), is there a world of warcraft tax?



You're not only a tool, but not a particularly bright tool, at that.

Garbage men are paid billions of dollars every year too. Is there a garbage tax then? (here, we pay private companies for garbage pickup).Not really, because I pay a fee directly to them, without the intervention of a third party. It's a private contract, between private parties. I can choose to let my garbage rot in my front yard, and pay nothing, if I so prefer.Disney makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year...is there a Disney tax?No, because I can choose whether to buy Disney's crap or not. A private contract, between private parties.World of Warcraft is bringing in about 360 million dollars a year from US subscriptions alone (assuming 2 million subscribers @ 15/mo), is there a world of warcraft tax?No, because I can choose whether WoW is worth pissing away my time and money.

The reason the "lawyer tax" is a "tax" is because I don't get to choose whether to pay you for (allegedly) increasing my safety. It's a choice you impose on me, whether I like it or not. Or, more accurately, it's a choice you impose on big businesses, which then recover your income from me.

Personally, I like Fyyr's suggestion of self-insurance much, much better than your suggestion of a lawyer tax. It gives me the choice, instead of imposing one on me. I think the small risk of added insurance litigation is well worth it when you consider you'll be removing the current enormous administrative cost sucked up by attorneys and courts on each case.

Don't switch your metaphors midstream.

There is a big difference between me throwing my pallet at your head...

And me setting it down, and you tripping over it, then you suing me, clumsy stupid oaf.

If people want protection from themselves, such as with 'slip and falls', then they should buy it themselves.

Do you have any idea how much retailers spend to protect themselves just from 'slip and fall' ambulance chasers and plaintiffs? I am sure you do, because it probably helped pay your way through school, probably even bought your cornflakes while you were growing up.

I don't actually know the number, but I know that I sold some pretty lucrative CCTV systems to customers, just for the purpose of catching these shyster baits in action, and protecting themselves from frivolous lawsuits. And they passed the expense right on to the consumer.

Yes, if you make me work for you without an agreement, and without pay, that meets just about anyone's definition of slavery.

Not the Kunta Kinte slavery where people chop off feet, mind you.

But working for another without a contract, agreement, or pay is considered slavery in the Western world.

Not really, because I pay a fee directly to them, without the intervention of a third party. It's a private contract, between private parties. I can choose to let my garbage rot in my front yard, and pay nothing, if I so prefer.No, because I can choose whether to buy Disney's crap or not. A private contract, between private parties.No, because I can choose whether WoW is worth pissing away my time and money.

The reason the "lawyer tax" is a "tax" is because I don't get to choose whether to pay you for (allegedly) increasing my safety. It's a choice you impose on me, whether I like it or not. Or, more accurately, it's a choice you impose on big businesses, which then recover your income from me.

But Tudamorf, according to your philosophy that we all end up paying...we're all paying for all the garbage men, all the Disney visitors and all of the WoW addicts.

The only person who is forced to pay against their will in a tort action is a negligent party who's conduct was found to be beyond a standard which is considered reasonable (or their insurance company acting on the negligent party's behalf).

Not you, not your neighbor. Noone else.

Personally, I like Fyyr's suggestion of self-insurance much, much better than your suggestion of a lawyer tax. It gives me the choice, instead of imposing one on me. I think the small risk of added insurance litigation is well worth it when you consider you'll be removing the current enormous administrative cost sucked up by attorneys and courts on each case.

Continue to think that. Its not a small risk of added insurance litigation, Tudamorf, its an inevitability. There will be no reduction in the "enormous" administrative costs, and indeed, will be an increase, as it will simply add another claim to the incident.

By the by, the judicial branch uses the least funding of the three branches (unless you add in police and prisons as part of the judicial branch) and the majority of the costs associated with federal courts are criminal and bankruptcy, the majority of costs on a state level tend to be criminal and family.

Don't switch your metaphors midstream.

There is a big difference between me throwing my pallet at your head...

And me setting it down, and you tripping over it, then you suing me, clumsy stupid oaf.

And in between there is you putting the pallet in a patantly hazardous spot.

If people want protection from themselves, such as with 'slip and falls', then they should buy it themselves.

People shouldn't have to pay money to protect themselves from the negligence of others. A store owner has certain responisibilities. Yes, I know, those damn yellow "Caution Wet Floor" signs are horribly expensive...suck it up and post them when there's a spill that noone's managed to get around to cleaning up yet.

Do you have any idea how much retailers spend to protect themselves just from 'slip and fall' ambulance chasers and plaintiffs? I am sure you do, because it probably helped pay your way through school, probably even bought your cornflakes while you were growing up.

Lordy lordy, we can't have retailers paying good money to keep their stores from being obstacle courses. Guess what, you dumb****, every law office has to meet the same standards. We aren't magically immune from being sued if someone slips and falls in our office because we were negligent. No, the cost really isn't that high. Reasonable care...reasonable.

I don't actually know the number, but I know that I sold some pretty lucrative CCTV systems to customers, just for the purpose of catching these shyster baits in action, and protecting themselves from frivolous lawsuits. And they passed the expense right on to the consumer.

Obviously you didn't sell that many CCTV systems to customers, for that purpose or any other. I'm sure you blame that on those damn shyster lawyers too.

Have you read the House of Lords statement or edict or whatever the **** you call it, regarding that bill? Where they explicitly state that they agree with the committee's finding that there is no "compensation culture" and that its largely a myth?

No, of course not, you're a baffoon who goes off the soundbytes of politicians

I tried to find it a few days ago and got the impression that it needed purchase through the internet. Perhaps with your expert knowledge you could find this edict, if you can decide what exactly it is, since you see it as being crucial to the British way of life. I think this is one of a series of review committees set up in 2004-6 to investigate the massive growth in UK compensation claims since 1990 when conditional fees were introduced.

There isn't a direct equivalent to the House of Lords in the US, it isn't much like the Supreme Court or the Senate. In either case though, I doubt I could persuade you that a compensation culture existed in the US just because a review committe within the Senate or Supreme Court said there wasn't evidence otherwise. The Lord Chancellor, whose comments you choose not to believe, is/was leader of the House of Lords so you're being particularly selective in choosing to disbelieve his comments in favour of other members of the House.

Take a look at the 2006 NHS reform bill while you're at it. You'll hate it. It is definitely a step away from the US awards system, just as the politicians said in their soundbytes. The actual evidence is there in that legislation.

I tried to find it a few days ago and got the impression that it needed purchase through the internet. Perhaps with your expert knowledge you could find this edict, if you can decide what exactly it is, since you see it as being crucial to the British way of life. I think this is one of a series of review committees set up in 2004-6 to investigate the massive growth in UK compensation claims since 1990 when conditional fees were introduced.

I was somewhat incorrect, evidently. What I read was the Compensation Bill [Lords] and specifically the response of the Government (by and through the Lord Chancellor's Office, mind you...) The full text (http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm67/6784/6784.pdf) of which is available, for free. I found it via the Parliament's website, or maybe it was the House of Lords website. British government is confusing even with regards to its websites.

Regardless...I would point out the very first statement made, under Summary:

The Government welcomes the Comittee's conclusion that it is evident from the statistical evidence that the UK is not moving towards a "compensation culture" driven by a significant increase in litigation.

Oh, woops, that's right. The government has determined that there is no evidence of a compensation culture. There is no evidence of a significant increase in litigation. There was no "massive growth of compensation claims in the UK".

=D

And in between there is you putting the pallet in a patantly hazardous spot.

Just on the ground is patently hazardous when you are an idiot clumsy oaf.

Obviously you didn't sell that many CCTV systems to customers, for that purpose or any other. I'm sure you blame that on those damn shyster lawyers too.

Obviously?

I sold quite a few. Personally I did not like that niche of the market. The percentage markup was too low, and back then(when I owned that company), there was very little opportunity for recurring income from CCTV.

People shouldn't have to pay money to protect themselves from the negligence of others.

Of course they should.

I have neglected to do a million things this morning already.

If you expect me to take care of your sorry klutzy ass, then you should be paying me, not the other way around.

You want me to hold your hand while I walk you around my property, I will, so you don't bang your head on my floor. I will even prevent you from poking out your eyes with my marshmellows, if I have to. But I should be able to charge you for it. Not the other way around.

Your idea of what is reasonable, is past the point of reason. That is the reason why more and more of us are opposed to the type of litigation that you support. And you are not going to be able to neglect that much longer.

I think it is reasonable that if people want to have this level of protection from their own sorry klutzy mistakes, they should have their own insurance to protect them from themselves. And any person who supports, like you do, this finger in the chili system is unreasonable.

But Tudamorf, according to your philosophy that we all end up paying...we're all paying for all the garbage men, all the Disney visitors and all of the WoW addicts.Uh, no. That makes no sense.The only person who is forced to pay against their will in a tort action is a negligent party who's conduct was found to be beyond a standard which is considered reasonable (or their insurance company acting on the negligent party's behalf).And since that party is forced to give up money with nothing of value in exchange, they're going to go somewhere else to get it. Their consumers.By the by, the judicial branch uses the least funding of the three branchesHow do you measure funding, the cost of the courthouses and the robes, or the cost of the consequences of the decisions of the people who wear them? And why is this relevant in any way to the discussion?

Aidon, you've linked to the UK government response and not the report itself. You've rightly spotted though that the UK government is making contrary statements, justifying its own relaxing of compensation law even as it tries to tighten it again. (There isn't a problem with the claims industry, it's all media perception, and yes we're fixing the "perception" by ... regulating the industry).

Here's a link to a UK government document that seems to speak some plain English, or at least as plain as we're going to get from politicians. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-028.pdf. It seems to tread a middle ground.

In my opinion the UK is a bit too litigious at the moment but not dangerously so. Perhaps good regulation can bring things into line without any extra legislation, or perhaps the claims industry will mature and become more responsible, we'll have to see. We are not moving towards a US style litigious society.

Just on the ground is patently hazardous when you are an idiot clumsy oaf.

"just on the ground" isn't necessarily negligent, either.

Of course, if we're talking about on the job, its a moot point, as most states have a workers compensation law which removes the question of negligence and liability entirely, in return for the inability for the injured party to seek future lost wages and a compensation schedule which is not, necessarily, in line with the employee's actual wages. All in all a stupid system, in my opinion, as it doesn't matter who was at fault..the employee gets paid for the time he misses work...but not enough and it doesn't take into consideration serious injuries which might make him unable to ever work that job again.

Aidon, you've linked to the UK government response and not the report itself. You've rightly spotted though that the UK government is making contrary statements, justifying its own relaxing of compensation law even as it tries to tighten it again. (There isn't a problem with the claims industry, it's all media perception, and yes we're fixing the "perception" by ... regulating the industry).

Here's a link to a UK government document that seems to speak some plain English, or at least as plain as we're going to get from politicians. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-028.pdf. It seems to tread a middle ground.

In my opinion the UK is a bit too litigious at the moment but not dangerously so. Perhaps good regulation can bring things into line without any extra legislation, or perhaps the claims industry will mature and become more responsible, we'll have to see. We are not moving towards a US style litigious society.

You're getting closer than you were. The more the Government attempts to privatize the legal system and moves away from a socialist system where the Government subsidized legal claims, the more the UK will have to move closer to a US system, if it wishes to maintain fair recourse for those injured via the negligence of others.

I will not attempt to advocate which system is better. In the end, so long as the system enables people to be fairly compensated for losses forced on them by the negligence of others, it doesn't really matter how it works.

Of course they should.

I have neglected to do a million things this morning already.

Obviously you know how to read...so why are you, evidently, absolutely incapable of understanding the definition of negligence, despite it having been defined and explained to you multiple times on these very boards?




You really are slow. Its not "my" idea of "reasonable". Its the people's ideas. Juries decide. Guess what, Fy'yr. There are people on juries who feel just like you do. That's what works with our system.

Unfortunately its also what's wrong with our system, as stupid people like you fall so readily for the lies the insurance industry puts out...or believe that the one case you see a year in the news which seems ridiculous in the news article is indicative of the legal system as a whole. Its the same sort of imbecility which sees a news report about a black man fleeing from police and then just "knows" that the black man was obviously a criminal, since he was running away...and further, see's it as evidence that blacks, as a whole, are criminals and we really should just lock them all up.

Its ignorant.

You're getting closer than you were. The more the Government attempts to privatize the legal system and moves away from a socialist system where the Government subsidized legal claims, the more the UK will have to move closer to a US system, if it wishes to maintain fair recourse for those injured via the negligence of others.

Have you read the NHS 2006 redress bill as I suggested? It specifically sets up an adjudication panel to handle awards of less than £20,000 to remove the need for litigation. This is a purposeful step to cut legal costs and avoid litigation.

Did you check the 2006 Compensation bill? The first part of the bill gave (voluntary) organisations more protection from litigation. The second part of the bill aims to tighten regulations over a claims industry that has developed a bad reputation since deregulation to conditional fees. This only a realignment of existing compensation law but it aims to reign in compensation culture (or the perception thereof).

Forget the spin. Look at the actual bills passed in parliament. The government is partly moving back to a socialist system.

In the end, so long as the system enables people to be fairly compensated for losses forced on them by the negligence of others, it doesn't really matter how it works.

I doubt anyone disagrees with a statement such as this. But there is a lot of dissent regarding the definition of "fairly compensated".

Aidon thinks that what is reasonable...

Is what some slick slippery tongued snake oil of a salesman lawyer sells a jury of 12 unemployed unintelligent rubes is reasonable....is reasonable.

I disagree.

Our American juries are not made up of my peers. I doubt they are made up of yours, or Pan's, or Anka's, or Madie's, or Tudamorf's, or most of the people who deign to post here. For we have minds, minds which might disagree.

But at least we, as few as we are, think. As much as we disagree(and call names), we think. American juries are NOT allowed to think.

If you are a thinking person, you are struck from the jury before the trial even starts. It is an absolute predication to being on a jury, that you must not be a thinking person. Here in America.

I want to move someday. Do they speak English in Norway?

Aidon thinks that what is reasonable...

Is what some slick slippery tongued snake oil of a salesman lawyer sells a jury of 12 unemployed unintelligent rubes is reasonable....is reasonable.

Dumb****.

A) Civil juries generally aren't 12 people. Don't spew the **** if you're too stupid to know what the **** you're talking about.

B) They are all usually employed and generally a damn sight smarter than your ignorant ass.

C) There are two "slick slipper tongued snake oil of a salesman" lawyers in every case, you ****ing moron. One of them is defense counsel. It isn't as if plaintiff's counsel gets to just tell the jury what they should think.



I disagree.

Our American juries are not made up of my peers. I doubt they are made up of yours, or Pan's, or Anka's, or Madie's, or Tudamorf's, or most of the people who deign to post here. For we have minds, minds which might disagree.

But at least we, as few as we are, think. As much as we disagree(and call names), we think. American juries are NOT allowed to think.

If you are a thinking person, you are struck from the jury before the trial even starts. It is an absolute predication to being on a jury, that you must not be a thinking person. Here in America.

I want to move someday. Do they speak English in Norway?

Having actually sat through Voire Dire, multiple times, and witnessed how attorney's decide who to use their pre-emptive challenges on, I can safely assure you that you're a ****ing tool who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

I want to move someday. Do they speak English in Norway?

No! :P

B) They are all usually employed and generally a damn sight smarter than your ignorant ass.ROFL. Have you ever actually sat in a jury pool? The average member of the jury who isn't excused is far stupider than any member of this board. Professionals in suits are suspiciously dismissed right off the bat with many of the "raise your hand if you believe so-and-so" questions.

The biggest threat to a salesman is a customer who is informed and thinks for himself. Lawyers don't want those types of people, because they're unpredictable. Lawyers want gullible people who can be swayed by standard sales pitches.C) There are two "slick slipper tongued snake oil of a salesman" lawyers in every case, you ****ing moron.Right, and it's a battle between who is the better salesman.

Had you reversed the roles of Johnnie Cochran and Marcia Clark, O.J. would be sitting in a grave right now.

It is allusion to the decidedly pro Liberal Henry Fonda fiasco.


nm.

Twelve Angry Men should be required viewing for every High School Student in America.

Perhaps then we'd have less morons who decide cases and convict suspects based on what they've heard in the new, rather than by thorough examination of the evidence proferred to a Jury.

Twelve Angry Men should be required viewing for every High School Student in America.
They should be required to watch it in their required civics classes.

Twelve Angry Men should be required viewing for every High School Student in America.

Perhaps then we'd have less morons who decide cases and convict suspects based on what they've heard in the new, rather than by thorough examination of the evidence proferred to a Jury.

I came away with the notion that lawyers were liars, and judges are blind and complicit, when I watched it.

I have to agree with the first part of the post.

If juries were normally even a fraction of thoughtful as those jury members were in the play, you and I would not have a topic to discuss. Juries are normally filled with unemployed and uneducated rubes, and think that just because someone is wearing a suit that what they say is important.

Juries are normally filled with unemployed and uneducated rubes, and think that just because someone is wearing a suit that what they say is important.

Aidon's explained that his opinion on this subject is formed by personal experience of sitting through numerous jury selection sessions and trials. So I'm curious - on what background is YOUR opinion (which you here present as fact) formed?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/02/BA3O18HJR4.DTLMySpace not liable for girls' rapes, court says

(07-01) 17:11 PDT LOS ANGELES -- Girls who were sexually assaulted by men they first contacted on MySpace cannot seek damages from the social-networking Web site, which is protected from liability by federal law, a state appeals court has ruled.

The decision by the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles rejected claims by the parents of four girls who were 13 to 15 years old when they posted their profiles on MySpace. Each said she encountered a man who later met her in person and raped her. Two of the men were sentenced to prison and the other two were awaiting trial when the suit was filed, the court said.All's well that ends well.

It's the second good ruling I've heard about today.

Now if the taxpayers could only get reimbursement from the greedy scumbags who filed this lawsuit, I'd be happy.

You dug this one out of a well.

Or should I say good.

Punishing people is the role of the state, through its penal system, not lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes.
Ok, you need to learn about the idea of Criminal and Civil Law and why we have both and the differences between them.

Criminal Law is where someone injures society. If I rob a bank, the government has ruled that is the business of society to prevent and punish this.

Civil Law is where two parties have a disagreement and one seeks money to compensate. If I borrow money from a bank and refuse to pay them back, the government has ruled that is between the bank and me. Although the government has set up Civil Law which helps the bank collect, the police will not arrest me.

The MySpace case is ridiculous because MySpace did nothing other than offer their services for people to meet each other. MySpace is clear that they just provide the access and it is up to you to decide if someone you meet can be trusted.

The Radio station case is different in that they decided to encourage people to do unsafe acts. You could blame the victim for being not smart enough to know better. However, there tends to be, and I approve, a feeling that you are to blame if you encourage unsafe acts, even if smart people would realize they were unsafe.

As for punitive damages, in the case of many corporations, they just calculate normal lawsuit damages as part of doing business and don't change their ways. It takes massive punitive damages to finally get them to change.

There are numerous cases of companies who are repeat offenders until a lawyer finally gets massive enough damages to get the company to stop.

Ok, you need to learn about the idea of Criminal and Civil Law and why we have both and the differences between them.Lawsuits should NEVER be used to punish people. Period. They should be used for economic compensation of quantifiable damages only.

The minute you allow any random person to "punish" any another person financially, backed by the force of the State, you create a chaotic situation where the deepest pockets are constantly being harassed by people who want to roll the dice to see whether they'll get that big payout.

Which is basically what's happening right now.

What's worse is that, generally speaking, you are liable for 100% of the damages even if you're only 1% responsible. So the truly responsible party never gets sued; only the wealthiest party, who had the tiniest, most inconsequential role, gets sued for everything.

And in the end we, the ordinary taxpayers and consumers, get hit with the bill.

Lawsuits should NEVER be used to punish people. Period. They should be used for economic compensation of quantifiable damages only.

The minute you allow any random person to "punish" any another person financially, backed by the force of the State, you create a chaotic situation where the deepest pockets are constantly being harassed by people who want to roll the dice to see whether they'll get that big payout.

Which is basically what's happening right now.
There are some people who file frivolous lawsuits. But there are far, far, far more people who are injured who never sue anyone.

In medical malpractice, to take one example, estimates are that perhaps 100,000 people die each year in the USA from it. If all of their families sued, the court systems would be backed up for 50 years and malpractice insurance would cost $20 million a year per doctor.

What's worse is that, generally speaking, you are liable for 100% of the damages even if you're only 1% responsible. So the truly responsible party never gets sued; only the wealthiest party, who had the tiniest, most inconsequential role, gets sued for everything.

This I agree with you on. But not all lawsuits end up with all parties as "jointly and severally liable". There are suits where the award is based on what percent each party is guilty of.

Perhaps the laws should be amended to make percent awards more common.

And in the end we, the ordinary taxpayers and consumers, get hit with the bill.
Maybe that's why we should hold the party who is guilty responsible with a civil lawsuit, rather than make the ordinary taxpayers and consumers get hit with the bill. You are aware that if someone is injured by someone else or a company's actions that, once they use up all of their own personal funds, they go on Medicaid and then the taxpayers pay, right?

So a civil lawsuit means that the people responsible pay, not the taxpayers. If Joe Smith is awarded $1 million dollars for their injury by suing the company, then that money will pay for their care, not Medicaid.

I totally agree that malpractice rarely is actually reported or torted (is that a word?). There were several times my parents in their elder years were badly misdiagnosed by their doctors. One time my father was having a stroke in his doctor's office and he didn't even do anything about it, just sent him home.

Drug companies seem so intent on hiding data that their drugs are ineffective or dangerous that they need to be punished for that sort of stuff. You can't lock up a corporation. The only way you can punish it is to fine it.

There are some people who file frivolous lawsuits. But there are far, far, far more people who are injured who never sue anyone.

In medical malpractice, to take one example, estimates are that perhaps 100,000 people die each year in the USA from it.Who prepared these "estimates"? Trial attorneys who want to justify raping our wallets?

It's bull****. EVERY time I hear about even the slightest injury, there is ALWAYS a lawsuit that follows.

It's ingrained in the American public consciousness: if something bad happens to you, try to milk some money off of it by suing.If all of their families sued, the court systems would be backed up for 50 years and malpractice insurance would cost $20 million a year per doctor.Thank you for proving my point.

If we have a legal system where the cost of paying out each instance of so-called malpractice is thousands of times greater than the cost of providing the service in the first place, then it's a sure sign that that system is hopelessly broken.You are aware that if someone is injured by someone else or a company's actions that, once they use up all of their funds, they go on Medicaid and then the taxpayers pay, right?Well, they go on Medicaid anyway if they're too poor to get health care. The issue is whether Medicaid gets reimbursement after the lawsuit. But the real irony is that the administrative cost of the lawsuit to the taxpayers will generally far exceed the value of the reimbursement, so the taxpayer loses.So a civil lawsuit means that the people responsible pay, not the taxpayers. If Joe Smith is awarded $1 million dollars for their injury by suing the company, then that money will pay for their care, not Medicaid.Any judgment against the company is simply passed on to all of its consumers.

Any good you buy today, be it a car, a ladder, health care, an iPod, or what not, comes with a lawyer tax attached to it. That is money YOU are paying directly out of your own wallet to help subsidize stupid people who injury themselves and who then abuse the legal system.

Notice all those idiotic warnings posted on devices you buy? Those are testaments to all the morons who injured themselves getting or trying to get a Darwin award, and who managed to milk money out of the system thanks to their stupidity. You are subsidizing these people by buying the product, and paying the tax.

Ever get a "notice of class action settlement" in the mail, about some product or service you bought a few years ago? Look at it next time. It's probably about something totally frivolous and you get maybe five cents as a class member. Often the post office makes more money off of these lawsuits (by mailing the notices) than the average class member does. But read the section on "attorney's fees" and you'll see that the lawyers get millions.

In some cases, the tax is extreme. Look at the health care industry: they have teams of people hired for no purpose other than to collect evidence to defend against lawsuits. You pay for these people each time you go to the doctor, and they provide no service to you whatsoever.

The "lawyer tax" is not just about the value of tort judgments, where in the United States, as a percentage of GDP, they are double that of other first world countries. It's about the more insidious hidden tax you pay on all your products and services, to subsidize stupid people, and their smarter lawyers.

Who prepared these "estimates"? Trial attorneys who want to justify raping our wallets?
The Institute of Medicine (IOM), one of the United States National Academies, is a not-for-profit, non-governmental American organization chartered in 1970 as a part of the United States National Academy of Sciences. Its purpose is to provide national advice on issues relating to biomedical science, medicine, and health, and its mission to serve as adviser to the nation to improve health. It works outside the framework of the U.S. federal government to provide independent guidance and analysis and relies on a volunteer workforce of scientists and other experts, operating under a rigorous, formal peer-review system. The Institute provides unbiased, evidence-based, and authoritative information and advice concerning health and science policy to policy-makers, professionals, leaders in every sector of society, and the public at large. more information on the IOM.

http://www.quic.gov/report/mederr2.htm

To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, a report released late last year by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), shocked the Nation by estimating that up to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of preventable medical errors. The report concludes that the majority of these errors are the result of systemic problems rather than poor performance by individual providers, and outlined a four-pronged approach to prevent medical mistakes and improve patient safety.

It's bull****. EVERY time I hear about even the slightest injury, there is ALWAYS a lawsuit that follows.
Strange how the press doesn't have many stories about someone getting injured and NOT suing. Because that doesn't make news. And it happens every day.

Just like the press doesn't report on the sun rising every morning. It isn't news.

To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, a report released late last year by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), shocked the Nation by estimating that up to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of preventable medical errors.Where does it say that, out of these 98,000 people, "far, far, far more" don't sue than do, which is what you said?

Also, what constitutes an "error"? How long would the patient have lived, and what would have been the quality of life, but for the "error"?

If you've got a comatose, terminally ill patient that died today instead of tomorrow on account of an "error", does that justify a lawsuit?Strange how the press doesn't have many stories about someone getting injured and NOT suing. Because that doesn't make news. And it happens every day.It's not the suing that makes the news. It's the injury that makes the news, and the suing is just a footnote that I happen to notice every time.

Now, if someone got injured and didn't sue, intentionally, that would make news.