...because of these lawsuits.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381&page=1
This anecdotal evidence is a perfect example of why we do not.
People always throw out such examples and say SEE, SEE! Without knowing either the entire facts nor the final outcome. The McDonald's woman is another perfect examples - look up how bad the burns were on her genitals and how much she ended up actually collecting. The fact is McDonald's kept their coffee about 50F hotter than anyone else because it was more efficient to do so without regard to safety. She shuffled away without a sum that would compensate me for third degree burns on my genitals (which one would NOT expect instantly from a cup of coffee).
In this instance, the items being sought are generally NOT compensable. You cannot get 10 years of rental fees because you dont like the business. Likewise, without agreement the sentimental value of an item is usually not compensable. It will all wash out and is indeed a silly lawsuit.
There are already procedures in place to deal with such things. A suit should be thrown out if it has no merit AND/or costs assessed against the plaintiff. Such measures are seldom used because when they are people complain about a mean old judge taking justice away from the hands of a jury. They should be used more frequently.
The fact of the matter remains that most cases filed in the US are justified. Perhaps it could have worked itself out a different way, but litigation is where it ended up. There is NOT a glut of litigation as some would have you believe - TRIALS ARE ACTUALLY DOWN. The Tort reform measures that are being offered are gifts to certain interests at the expense of citizens rights - packaged as financial savings.
Usually, when I sell something I get something in return. Here, I am expected to sell my rights to save doctors money. No, the rules that are in place now should be enforced before we try to alter the game. Frivolous law suits should be cast out with expenses and legitimate victims should be fully compensated.
The suggested measure would do nothing to inhibit frivolous lawsuits, does not guarantee savings for anyone, and would harm real victims by reducing potential awards. Rights are only as strong as ones ability to enforce them, the more we limit the courts the less we can enforce our rights and less valuable they become.
CF. I do not want to argue with you on this point. If you want to defend the basis of a judge seeking in excess of $60M from a dry cleaners because he could not wear his favorite pants on his first day on the bench feel free. While your at it, defend the prison escapee who sues the prison and the state to recover damages from injuries he sustained during the escape. Here are some other examples:
http://www.cala.org/lawofthemo.html
I see these types of lawsuits all the time (I think you know I am an attorney). Unfortunately, having as the only protection afforded a victim of a frivolous lawsuit is the possibility that a court might sanction that plaintiff is unacceptable.
If you dont want to argue the point, you should not have posted it.
For every frivolous suite that is filed there are many more than are warranted. Shall I post to something that lists worthy cases - because there would be many more than your examples. Setting the system up to prevent abuse at the expense of justice is not acceptable.
Once more time:
1) The proposed tort reform will not effect frivolous law suits. Anyone can hire an 'expert' to say anything and get their day in court. If they dont use the rules to keep them out now, they wont then.
2) It will not save most people money. It hasnt in Texas or other tort reform states. If premiums do drop, the difference is pocketed by doctors who arent going to take a pay cut or by insurance companies in higher profit - who arent going to issue consumer refunds.
3) And its at the expense to real victims. No matter how bad the tragedy or egregious the violation - here's $300,000 for your trouble. I would not sell my arm for $300K nor is that enough money to make a major hospital ensure it does not happen again. Likewise, without the prospect of large verdicts much fewer cases will settle and MORE litigation could ensue.
Over all, it will not effectuate the stated purpose and will be harmful to the average citizen. It may financially benefit those in the medical industry who pay med. mal. insurance and will certainly help insurance companies but probably NOT the average Joe.
I do not work in the tort bar currently but have in the past for Riggs Abney, likewise I worked on the defense side for Boone Smith and Gibbs Armstrong. I understand what goes on from the attorney's perspectives on both sides and I do not feel the reform would have done any meaningful good to either bar. It would have created more hoops for the Tort Bar, but not effected 90% of their cases.
So are you going to defend the judge's $60M lawsuit because of his pants (which was the impetus for this thread) or not?
As for "tort" law, I do work in this area and am speaking from experience. I also am married to one of those professional types who, in your opinion, would be profiteering from tort reform. You have no concept of the costs that are borne by hardworking and dedicated medical professionals in this staste that are passed along to patients and taxpayers. In fact, doctors are leaving Oklahoma for Texas because of tort reform, which ultimately decreases the quality of health care in this state.
http://oksenate.gov/news/press_releases/press_releases_2007/pr20070213a.html
But hey, I guess having your day in a court in a state where a former state senator publicly encouraged lawyers throughout the country to file their lawsuits in Oklahoma is a fair exchange for health care.
As for reform measure, it might be a good idea to actually read the proposed tort reform (approved by the House and Sentate but vetoed) before you comment on its provisions. If you had read it, you would know that the proposed limitations on damages was for NON-ECONOMIC damages only. Your arm was not worth just $300K as you mistakenly stated. In your scenario, all that was limited was pain and suffering, grief, and other speculative particulars.
quote:
Unfortunately, having as the only protection afforded a victim of a frivolous lawsuit is the possibility that a court might sanction that plaintiff is unacceptable.
Why? I am not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear to me that if more of these suits were thrown out for lack of merit and all costs being assesed to the plaintiff there would be less of an eagerness to sue. Let's face it, who owns a 60+ million dollar pair of pants anyway. This should have never seen the light of day. Forcing the owners of the dry cleaners now to hire a lawyer to defend them regardless of how much of the suit is compensable. The fact remains that the dry cleaner will be out thousands of dollars to defend itself over an 800.00 pair of slacks. Fox News reported this morning that an offer of $4000.00 was made to the plaintiff to settle. Seems like a handsome sum to me.
*No lawyers were harmed in the production of this post
quote:
*No lawyers were harmed in the production of this post
Too bad, Eh?
It seems odd to assume this case will be so easily thrown out when it's A JUDGE who filed the suit?
They should be the first line of defense, not the perpetrator.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
*No lawyers were harmed in the production of this post
Too bad, Eh?
Yeah, that might solve all the problems with these types of suits. No lawyers, no suits. My dad said once that if one lawyer sets up practice in a small town he (the lawyer) would starve to death writing wills and recording deeds. Let a second lawyer set up in the same small town and both of them will get rich suing each other.[:D] That just made a lot of sense to me.
** once again, no lawyers were harmed by the production of this post, well maybe some hurt feelings. Hey, they can't sue me for that... right?
I may need to rethink my position on this issue. Apparently Rosie O'Douchebag thinks we need tort reform too:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12472
Guido:
As per the $60mil pair of pants -
As I mentioned above,
quote:
the items being sought are generally NOT compensable. You cannot get 10 years of rental fees because you dont like the business. Likewise, without agreement the sentimental value of an item is usually not compensable. It will all wash out and is indeed a silly lawsuit.
I feel that answered your question in my original post.
Since you want extrapolation, the lawsuit itself is not frivolous. The amount requested is what is at odds with logic here. The man deserves to be compensated for his pants - whatever their actual value is ($100? $200?). This suit would not be barred by the proposed Oklahoma Tort reform. He would have to get an expert to testify that the dry cleaner was negligent when losing the pants... but he would certainly be able to bring suit.
Exchange for Health Care:
There is no evidence that any savings will materialize. If that should happen, there is no evidence that the savings will be passed on. If they are, there is no evidence that they will be passed on to consumers. If they are, there is no evidence how much those savings that may be. That's a lot of IF's to come to no conclusion.
You love the Texas tort reform so much but there is STILL no evidence that it has aided health care in Texas. Nor is there evidence that the individual health care recipients (payers) received any benefit.
For that matter, I have not heard of a single MD who has left OK for Texas because of lower premiums. While on that subject, there is some evidence that the Tulsa area has a glut of doctors that represses wages. The average MD only makes $145,000 a year. They worked hard for that and deserve to keep as much as they can, but many professions have expenses associated with them. Their compensation reflects that and have no evidence that our quality of health care is harmed by our pursuit of justice.
If anything, the quality is better. Without the risk of consequences for
intentional and malicious acts the quality would for sure go down. For some reason it is always left out of the debate that the cap would only have an effect on
intentional and malicious acts. Simply negligence already has a punitive cap of $100,000. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 23, § 9.1.
And since you brought it up, the price of my arm is indeed limited to $300,000 under the tort reform. I will be compensated for medical bills, lost wages, and future earning potential. The actual inherent value of my arm is included in the pain and suffering total (
inability to play catch with my boy, fish, etc. are NON ECONOMIC DAMAGES). Thus, while I will be fully compensated for my actual economic loss, the compensation for actually losing my arm is capped at $300,000.
So... if I offered to pay all your medical bills for the procedure AND offered to make up your current and future lost wages: would you sell me your right arm for $300,000? Most people would say no.
as per Rosie: being subjected to her should be reformed to a tort unto itself.
Guido wrote:
CF. I do not want to argue with you on this point.
<end clip>
Guido, you do this a lot. You post something, and when someone argues something contrary or points out something that makes you uncomfortable, you say you don't want to discuss it.
TulsaNow hosts many vigorous discussions. If you don't have the courage to defend your opinions, perhaps you need to go where you won't be challenged.
I like my torte in a little round aluminum cup. Is there really any need to re-form them?
RW: I do exactly what "a lot". All I was doing was posting an FYI re: a BS lawsuit brought by a JUDGE. Since the issue of tort reform was already recently discussed in this forum, perhaps I should have posted the story in the discussion forum. Oh, I am not uncomfortable taking legal issues head on with anybody on this forum. My only requirement is that if you are going to talk about how bad tort reform is, then you better have AT LEAST read the darn proposed statute. Otherwise, why argue since all you are doing is arguing with someone who is woefully uninformed. And BTW, who asked for your two cents? Do you want take me on in the tort reform debate?
CF--Look at the proposed tort reform statute in its entirety and I will gladly debate it with you just like IP and ALT did separately on the truther stuff. I am interested in hearing the arguments of a lawyer supporting the concept of litigation free for alls. Also, I am interested in hearing you defending the former state senator's open invitation to out of state lawyers to come and sue his constituents and Oklahoma citizens.
I will be back to discuss your points on the impact of tort reform on health care. I will, however, leave you with this little nugget re: effect of reform in Texas:
http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/jan05/tortreform.htm
<guido wrote:
And BTW, who asked for your two cents?
<end clip>
Since you're the one who posted this, that is in essence an invitation for everyone who participates in this forum to weigh in. Don't complain when people do so.
Be interesting to see what this judge is doing for a living, and where, another ten years from now.
I realize that this is a headline case, and indeed not normal day-in-day-out example of the typical, but seems it should have been tossed about the time he rejected the 4K offer for his prized pair of trousers.
Man, If I finally get caught I'd hate to go up in front of him if for nothing else then the huge legal fees I'd rack up attempting a defense.
When does it become a mockery?
jdb
"When does it become a mockery?"
If you ask CF, it will never become a mockery since the judge's right to his day in court to prove his emotional distress is what is most important.
You are right, I posted this thread to encourage discussion. So what point do you have to make regarding this subject? None. Your comments are directed at me.
Anyway, in reading many of your posts on this site, you seem to have an opinion on just about every subject out there. Here's my challenge to you smart guy (to prove I am not uncomfortable about debate), YOU take the position opposing Oklahoma's proposed tort reform and I will defend the proposed statute. I will go further and even defend the one area that I feel is over-reaching, that being the modification to the long standing collateral source rule.
Put up or shut up.
Here's a way reducing frivolous lawsuits. The plaintiff pays court costs and other fees of the defendant if the plaintiff loses. That would help ensure that only solid lawsuits are filed.
Guido, I'm glad you decided to stay with the discussion instead of ducking.
Guido, I regret that I do not have the time to re-read the bill and go over it point by point at the moment. I will make an effort to do so in the near future, but do not feel a point by point discussion is needed when the CAP itself is where we primarily disagree - a most basic premise of the bill.
Also, I will not defend the Senators comments because I do not fully agree with them. Nor do I know in what context they were made. Of course I have heard that quote, but I am not knowledgeable enough on the point to defend nor condemn it.
As per Texas Tort Reform, you posted to the American College pf Physicians. Who were the primary force behind the measure and are a driving force for reform in other states. They boldly state:
quote:
Proposition 12â€"is making a difference where it counts: in lowering malpractice premium rates and reducing the number of lawsuits being filed.
The entire article is about how great it is for MD's. They saved 8% on med mal premiums. I never argued it wouldnt be good for the medical and insurance industry, I argued it was bad for everyone else.
They saved 8% because now if they accidentally KILL SOMEONE or cut off the wrong arm, they are not required to compensate the victim to the point of making them whole. So that's really good for the Doctor and his insurance company, not so good for victim. A law should be in place for the good of the public, not for the good of a small and very powerful lobby.
Even if it saved the entire state of Texas 8% on medical premiums, it would be an 8% savings at the expense of those that had a negligent doctor harm them. I'm not against stopping frivolous law suites, but an economic damages cap has NOTHING to do with that. Likewise, you are naive if you think requiring an expert will somehow slow the tide of crappy suits. There are already plenty of shady experts who only testify for one side on a professional basis.
I guess we may need to refine the disagreement, do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
1) Negligent doctors should be forced to pay for their mistakes.
2) Most damage awards are fair.
3) Excessive damage awards are the exception, and most often quelled on appeal.
4) Non-Economic damages for the loss of a limb can easily exceed $300,000 and still not constitute a "jackpot" award.
5) Most doctors are careful practitioners but would maintain insurance even if not required because mistakes happen.
6) There are too many frivolous lawsuits filed.
7) Damage caps will not significantly discourage frivolous lawsuits.
8) The collateral damage rule is fine as it stands.
9) You can find and 'compensate for their time' an 'expert' witness to say nearly anything.
10) Med. Mal. Insurance costs are not the driving cost factor in the medical field (compared to salary, facilities, supplies and equipment)
11) The average person will not see significant savings from any Tort reform measure
12) Even if significant savings were achieved, losing ones right to fair compensation will be lost and it is not worth the trade.
I think those are fair statements of my position with an attempt to abstain from explanation. Let me know where we disagree.
I will get back to you CF.
Thanks RW for complimenting me on not ducking, as YOU duck the offer to debate me on Oklahoma's tort reform statute. BTW, introducing "loser pays" is not a response to my challenge. That's called "changing the subject."
You're welcome. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
This anecdotal evidence is a perfect example of why we do not.
People always throw out such examples and say SEE, SEE! Without knowing either the entire facts nor the final outcome. The McDonald's woman is another perfect examples - look up how bad the burns were on her genitals and how much she ended up actually collecting. The fact is McDonald's kept their coffee about 50F hotter than anyone else because it was more efficient to do so without regard to safety. She shuffled away without a sum that would compensate me for third degree burns on my genitals (which one would NOT expect instantly from a cup of coffee).
First of all anyone who opens a cup of hot liquids in between their legs is a dumb donkey.Second anyone who needs to be told that coffee is hot should not be drinking coffee at all and perhaps should be locked away in a institution.Third the coffee was kept at optimal temperature in order to maintain best flavor,so Liebeck's lawyers do not know what the hell they are talking about .Forth the lawyers argued that lowing the temperature could have given here the extra seconds she needed in order to remove her clothing before suffering from burns,but she sat in a hot puddle for 90 seconds(sgrizzle pointed out that little detail) .So the Liebeck case is a example of a fraudulent lawsuit.
In Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case they claim the coffee was around 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit,which is what the temperature the national coffee association says is acceptable.
quote:
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee.
snip...
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
BUNN suggest a holding temperature of 175ºF to 185ºF and a 155ºF to 175ºF serving temperature
quote:
Ideal holding temperature: 175ºF to 185ºF (80ºC to 85ºC)
snip...
http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html
Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)
Here they say she sat in the puddle of hot coffee for over 90 seconds.
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case#Background_of_the_case
Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds,
Here they make bogus claims that extra seconds would have enabled her extra time to get out of here clothes
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case#Evidence_presented_to_the_jury
Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 degree coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit). Lowering the temperature to 160 degrees Fahrenheit would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds(A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[10]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.
There are two sides to every story:
quote:
ATLA Wrote[/i}
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonald's even admitted that no one could drink its coffee at the temperature served without third degree burns to their mouth and throat. The Jury Awarded the woman medical bills and 3 days coffee sales (or 2.2mil) but it was reduced on appeal to $480,000 in punitive damages (about half of one day's sales of Coffee for McDonald's). She accepted a reduced amount after McDonald's threatened to appeal.
State law in NM does not allow comparative negligence. I would have preferred to see her lose a % of the verdict because you are correct, opening hot coffee near ones genitals is NOT smart. She was partially responsible for the mishap. 12 citizens in Albuquerque sat through the entire trial and seemed to think McDonald's acted abhorrently. The trial and appellate judge agreed and McDonald's ultimately lost faith in their own case and agreed. Ultimately, I feel comfortable trusting those minds on the matter.
and finally - I've never heard the argument that she should have ripped her clothes off... merely that at a normal serving temperature of 150F coffee is not capable of 3rd degree burns before it loses its heat (unless you poured the pot in the same spot slowly - so as to maintain a steady heat treatment). The 2 seconds in which McDonald's coffee caused THIRD DEGREE burns is clearly not enough time to remedy the situation by any means.
On a related point - McDonald's Coffee (served at its new cooler temperature) recently won a taste testing competition in Seattle against Seattles Best and Starbucks. :)
Where is Judge Judy when you need her?[}:)]
The judge who sued over his pants (who was the impetus for this post) has seen the light and is now seeking more reasonable damages. He only wants 54 million dollars now:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278414,00.html
Pretending that I know the merits of the case, even the elements of a Consumer Protection Act claim, or the proper measure of damages - which I dont... why would be put more laws on the books to be ignored?
Juries are in place to serve as the reasonable person - they are usually the best informed parties to make the decision. Certainly more informed about a lawsuit over a DC law applied in DC over an even that took place in DC between residents of DC than some guy sitting in Oklahoma. Sometimes a jury gets it wrong, sure enough. But I would sooner trust a jury than a bunch of politicians with my fate.
Secondly, there are laws in place to deal with frivolous law suits. There are several methods to dispose of the suit and even to punish the offending filer. The rules currently in place are not frequently enforced. Pretending a new law will solve the problem when existing laws are supposed to cover it is naive.
All, of course, pretending it applies since we really do not have a clue when we are talking about in this case.
CF: Are you serious? Can you really think of a circumstance where the damages for a missing pair of pants could be 54 or 65 million dollars? Give me a break. ANY effort to justify this damage claim brought by a jurist is itself "frivolous." I know you have faith in juries (which I certainly do not have), but this lawsuit is an abomination.
Incidentally, I originally started this thread as sort of a joke given that the lawsuit was brought by a judge, presumably a person who knows what a frivolous lawsuit is. However, if you would like to debate the recent failed tort reform effort here in Oklahoma, I would welcome the opportunity. I recently prepared a summary of the 12-15 areas that Oklahoma's legislature passed and that Henry vetoed. Of those areas, there are several that I think you would support. These include the 8 year statute of repose for just about all tort claims, new definition of "frivolous" lawsuits," confidentiality of peer review materials, and modification of Oklahoma's summary judgment statute to mirror the federal standard. One potential reform I disliked, though, was the modifications to the collateral source rule which could have resulted in the introduction of all sorts of collateral source payments a plaintiff received during trial.
To me the whole thing calls into question the judge's jurisprudence. You can cite his rights as a citizen, the laws, etc. ad nauseum and it still won't change my opinion this suit is in very poor taste and is incredibly frivolous.
To me, and this is only my common sense- a judge is an arbitor of the law and accepted community standards. A judge has a position of responsibility, authority, and to an extent leadership, and should be an example of fairness. I fail to see how filing a $54 million law suit against a small dry cleaner is either fair nor a sign of sound jurisprudence.
Of course the law trumps my common sense approach. Personally, I think he ought to be jack-booted from the bench and go back to being a private practice ambulance chaser.
This judge is a fruitcake and I agree with you quido about tort reform. For anyone to try and argue that any such case (coffee case included) to have merit must have some kind of monetary stake in keeping the status quo (yes, I'm talking about you CF).
Frivolous lawsuits cost this country billions of dollars per year. I'm glad to hear a lawyer such as yourself argue against this nonsense quido.
Guido:
In this case, no. I am hard pressed to defend this lawsuit. To me it seems insane and I thought it would be thrown out of court.
But as I pointed out, I am not familiar with the law they are suing under. It is possible that the law is poorly written and retarded damages are available for misleading the public. I assume that to be the case in that a legal expect (presumably anyway, being a judge) is bringing the suit. I am not an expert nor even a novice in the area of law this suit is being undertaken, so I can not say for sure that it is frivolous under the law (even if it seems stupid).
My faith in juries is not absolute. I'm afraid I think Joe Blow American cares more about whatever reality show is in season than justice or even his own personal freedoms. However, I have yet to hear of a better system. Certainly a jury of peers is better than a government official deciding.
And finally, some of the propositions in the tort reform were well thought out and would help. Others would not. I have no illusions that our system is perfect but I fear sacrificing my right to full recovery to avoid a couple ridiculous lawsuits. I wish judges would enforce the rules as written and toss such crap out of court - I understand they do not want to be blamed for denying someone a day in court... but in some instances, that is their job.
Lister
I have worked for a federal judge, a plaintiffs firm, a bankruptcy trustee, and 2 defense firms. Of those, only one has a stake int he status quo (Riggs, Abney, Neal Turpin, Orbison and Lewis), 2 would be in favor of change, and 2 ambivalent. Currently I work in a business environment and have no stake in litigation reform. My apparent bias comes from an understanding of the system - I know why it functions as it does and can foresee the inevitable problems in most attempts to alter it.
Again, it is not perfect. But be wary of giving up your rights to get rid of a small minority of frivolous cases.
What do you expect? This is in DC where people still think Marion Berry is a saint. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Guido:
In this case, no. I am hard pressed to defend this lawsuit. To me it seems insane and I thought it would be thrown out of court.
But as I pointed out, I am not familiar with the law they are suing under. It is possible that the law is poorly written and retarded damages are available for misleading the public. I assume that to be the case in that a legal expect (presumably anyway, being a judge) is bringing the suit. I am not an expert nor even a novice in the area of law this suit is being undertaken, so I can not say for sure that it is frivolous under the law (even if it seems stupid).
My faith in juries is not absolute. I'm afraid I think Joe Blow American cares more about whatever reality show is in season than justice or even his own personal freedoms. However, I have yet to hear of a better system. Certainly a jury of peers is better than a government official deciding.
And finally, some of the propositions in the tort reform were well thought out and would help. Others would not. I have no illusions that our system is perfect but I fear sacrificing my right to full recovery to avoid a couple ridiculous lawsuits. I wish judges would enforce the rules as written and toss such crap out of court - I understand they do not want to be blamed for denying someone a day in court... but in some instances, that is their job.
Lister
I have worked for a federal judge, a plaintiffs firm, a bankruptcy trustee, and 2 defense firms. Of those, only one has a stake int he status quo (Riggs, Abney, Neal Turpin, Orbison and Lewis), 2 would be in favor of change, and 2 ambivalent. Currently I work in a business environment and have no stake in litigation reform. My apparent bias comes from an understanding of the system - I know why it functions as it does and can foresee the inevitable problems in most attempts to alter it.
Again, it is not perfect. But be wary of giving up your rights to get rid of a small minority of frivolous cases.
CF, I guess my bias against the system stems from what I've seen on a first hand basis. I've seen such injustice in the justice system that I would rather such frivolous cases not even be allowed to appear before a judge. Many years ago, I witnessed the court system basically make a mockery of a civil case that I was involved in and realized that my case was not an exception. It had to do with child custody, and neither the judge or the lawyers (for either side) were really concerned with what was best for the child. It was as obvious as the nose on your face that they were more concerned with dragging everything out as long as possible to extract more and more money from two parties that could no longer afford such a thing.
So, I am biased, and perhaps in this issue not the best judge (no pun intended), but I see the whole judge/lawyer relationship as people who create a problem, then the same people that create the problem are the very people that make sure you can only come to them for a resolution. In short, a racket.
I've heard far too many horror stories of attornies being the only winners in divorces and both the plaintiff and respondent winding up bankrupt. But, (not saying this is your case) people often bring it upon themselves by being greedy or just plain spiteful.
Conan, that is true in some cases. In my case, it was bold-faced good ol' boy politic'in between the judge and the attorneys. BTW, It wasn't a divorce.
Love is grand.
Divorce is around 50 grand.
Why is divorce so expensive?
Because it is worth it!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've heard far too many horror stories of attornies being the only winners in divorces and both the plaintiff and respondent winding up bankrupt. But, (not saying this is your case) people often bring it upon themselves by being greedy or just plain spiteful.
That is the exact reason why I do not practice that sort of "family" law.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've heard far too many horror stories of attornies being the only winners in divorces and both the plaintiff and respondent winding up bankrupt. But, (not saying this is your case) people often bring it upon themselves by being greedy or just plain spiteful.
That is the exact reason why I do not practice that sort of "family" law.
I respect you even more...[:D]
Divorce is expensive and parties go bankrupt when they don't listen to their attorney's and insist on fighting over every detail. The respectable family law attorney's I know complain that their clients are making them do drag the fight on instead of giving up some trivial aspect of the divorce. Clients CONTROL attorneys, they are the employer and the boss. I'm sure their are attorney's who milk cases, but in my experience they are the exception. A happy client will bring in enough business to compensate you many times over for the time you could have milked.
Lister: Yes, there are some cases that are a mockery. There are some attorney's who milk the system not realizing that doing so hurts them in the long run. And with our elected judiciary with minimal standards, there are some judges who are incompetent or not assertive enough to deal with the problems.
But the alternative is to have a government employee tell you what your rights are and you shut up and deal with it. Given the alternative, the current system is the preferred option.
In your situation, one of the attorney's should have pointed out the other's stall tactics. It is very common place to complain that another party is dragging their feet. Most judges do not have time for that crap and will try to speed things along. The judge has the power to raise this concern and in my Federal Experience they do not hesitate to tell the parties to get their sh!t together. Finally, the parties themselves have the right and the duty to control their attorney's. The attorney is their employee and if he is doing something they do not like they can tell him to stop and/or fire him.
again, system not perfect... far from it. But it is better than the alternative government dictate system of rights. The more the government decides what your rights are, the less rights you really have. After all, they can simply decide you no longer have that right and it becomes reality.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Divorce is expensive and parties go bankrupt when they don't listen to their attorney's and insist on fighting over every detail. The respectable family law attorney's I know complain that their clients are making them do drag the fight on instead of giving up some trivial aspect of the divorce. Clients CONTROL attorneys, they are the employer and the boss. I'm sure their are attorney's who milk cases, but in my experience they are the exception. A happy client will bring in enough business to compensate you many times over for the time you could have milked.
Lister: Yes, there are some cases that are a mockery. There are some attorney's who milk the system not realizing that doing so hurts them in the long run. And with our elected judiciary with minimal standards, there are some judges who are incompetent or not assertive enough to deal with the problems.
But the alternative is to have a government employee tell you what your rights are and you shut up and deal with it. Given the alternative, the current system is the preferred option.
In your situation, one of the attorney's should have pointed out the other's stall tactics. It is very common place to complain that another party is dragging their feet. Most judges do not have time for that crap and will try to speed things along. The judge has the power to raise this concern and in my Federal Experience they do not hesitate to tell the parties to get their sh!t together. Finally, the parties themselves have the right and the duty to control their attorney's. The attorney is their employee and if he is doing something they do not like they can tell him to stop and/or fire him.
again, system not perfect... far from it. But it is better than the alternative government dictate system of rights. The more the government decides what your rights are, the less rights you really have. After all, they can simply decide you no longer have that right and it becomes reality.
I hear you CF, but in my case both lawyers almost acted like buddies an would go off together to confer with the judge for long periods of time. They would come out of the judges chambers joking with each other. I fired one lawyer and the judge berated me for that and said I had to have legal representation. It's almost as if the system wasn't there for me, but I was there for the system. I actually got more done at one point by negotiating with the opposing attorney myself over the phone. Our attorney wasn't representing us as she was supposed to - she was deliberately trying to make things complex and actually sided with the other side in one very important aspect that could only be looked upon as collusion with the other side. It had nothing to do with legality, she was trying to impose her moral opinion on us.
I understand what you're saying about the other options. I'm just saying there is a lot of corruption in the legal system and the very people that run this corrupt system are not policed by anyone other than themselves. I know of no other profession that has so much power. Judges can almost get away with anything in their courtrooms; they act as if they are god. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they have almost absolute power; them and their lawyer buddies.
From MSNBC (//%22http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414287/%22)
quote:
WASHINGTON - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.
The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.
Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.
Story continues below #8595;advertisement
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims.
Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd and overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.
You beat me to the punch:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/pearson_v_custom_cleaners_the.html
He gets NOTHING and has to pay for the defendants court costs. Not to mention, being thrown out on the merits, the owner of the shop can take action against HIM if they so chose. Though, generally, such things are unsuccessful.
Nonetheless, verdict for the defendant plus costs. The outcome you all wanted.