Loser Pays

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
Something we should request from our representatives. It would eliminate most frivilous lawsuits and would open up the courts dockets. Of course since it is politicians (mostly lawyers) that have the power to make this change added to the vast amounts of money trial lawyers donate to their campaigns.... somehow I just don't see this happening.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/bullies.html

"Our legal system invites lawyers to act like bullies. Only in America can I sue you for dubious reasons, force you to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers (not to mention the psychic costs -- the anxiety and lost sleep that lawsuits create), and when a judge rules that my claim is bunk, I don't even have to say "sorry." I can blithely move on to sue someone else. In other countries, I would have to pay your legal fees to at least compensate you for some of the financial damage I caused. "Loser pays," it's called."
 
Superfreak said:
Something we should request from our representatives. It would eliminate most frivilous lawsuits and would open up the courts dockets. Of course since it is politicians (mostly lawyers) that have the power to make this change added to the vast amounts of money trial lawyers donate to their campaigns.... somehow I just don't see this happening.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/bullies.html

"Our legal system invites lawyers to act like bullies. Only in America can I sue you for dubious reasons, force you to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers (not to mention the psychic costs -- the anxiety and lost sleep that lawsuits create), and when a judge rules that my claim is bunk, I don't even have to say "sorry." I can blithely move on to sue someone else. In other countries, I would have to pay your legal fees to at least compensate you for some of the financial damage I caused. "Loser pays," it's called."
Click to expand...


It's a bad rule with serious negative consequences, which are really the main attraction for most people that push for a "loser pays" rule.

Not all losing claims are bad claims or frivolous claims and current rules exist for bringers of frivolous claims to be sanctioned, including paying the other party's attorney's fees.
 
It will work out to the one who can afford the most / best lawyers do not pay.

So If I sue a mega corp and they spend 1 million on lawyers and win their side I have to pay 1 million for their lawyers ? Even if I am truely in the right ?

Remember in the USA you get as much justice as you can afford.
 
This malpractice and frivilous lawsuit this is just a right wing blown out of proportion thing anyway. Total malpractice costs are just 2% or somesuch of medical costs.
And many malpractice suits are very valid. The health care industry needs to clean up it's act a bit.
 
The English rule is unfair because it discourages people from seeking redress from percieved wrongs or trying to extend coverage of a law because of attorney fees.

The American rule is also unfair because it puts litigants in debt for defending themselves because of attorney fees.

The key problem here, it seems, is that attorneys cost money. Anyone got a way to get rid of that?
 
Watermark said:
The English rule is unfair because it discourages people from seeking redress from percieved wrongs or trying to extend coverage of a law because of attorney fees.

The American rule is also unfair because it puts litigants in debt for defending themselves because of attorney fees.

The key problem here, it seems, is that attorneys cost money. Anyone got a way to get rid of that?
Click to expand...

Yep to an extent, regulate em.
We have too many anyway.
 
SF do you really think that ONLY the plaintiff lawyers donate money to politicians? You ever hear of the Defense Lawyers Association. Not the Criminal Defense lawyers but lawyers that are hired guns for Insurance companies. Loser pays is designed to insure that people do not sue EVEN when they have been damaged. Because the truth is you could always lose even when you are right. This insures that close cases NEVER see the judicial system because plaintiffs cannot afford to pay the exhorbent fees of an attorney that gets paid hour for hour regardless of the outcome of the case.

That being said, there should be some changes to the system. We now have a system that allows people to sue for punitive damages solely because a medication or medical device, that passed FDA scrutiny, still hurt someone. If the device passes FDA scrutiny and no one hid information or lied to the FDA then hey shit happens. You should be compensated for actual damages and futures but no punitives. If the FDA system is screwed then it should be changed. There are cases where punitives are appropriate. The Ford Pinto "let em burn" memo from Lee Iaccoca should have exposed not only Ford to punitive damages but Ford officials should have faced criminal charges for wrecklessly endangering the lives of their customers and in some cases actual death.

There are ways to modify awards and keep them within the bounds of reason without using loser pays to bully people who were actually hurt from seeking compensation for their injuries.
 
Tort Reform is the politically correct term.

Tell me how much would it be worth to a 2 yr old for their mother to die of malpractice ?

KY says 225K now I think.
 
Dungheap said:
It's a bad rule with serious negative consequences, which are really the main attraction for most people that push for a "loser pays" rule.

Not all losing claims are bad claims or frivolous claims and current rules exist for bringers of frivolous claims to be sanctioned, including paying the other party's attorney's fees.
Click to expand...

If there are such "serious negative consequences" then perhaps you could explain to me why we are the only court system to NOT have the "loser pays" rules. Not trying to be argumentative, I simply do not understand what the negatives of such a system would be.
 
uscitizen said:
This malpractice and frivilous lawsuit this is just a right wing blown out of proportion thing anyway. Total malpractice costs are just 2% or somesuch of medical costs.
And many malpractice suits are very valid. The health care industry needs to clean up it's act a bit.
Click to expand...

my god, you have been taking lessons from Cypress. Where did I say a damn thing about malpractice or this topic being about the health industry?
 
Socrtease said:
SF do you really think that ONLY the plaintiff lawyers donate money to politicians? You ever hear of the Defense Lawyers Association. Not the Criminal Defense lawyers but lawyers that are hired guns for Insurance companies. Loser pays is designed to insure that people do not sue EVEN when they have been damaged. Because the truth is you could always lose even when you are right. This insures that close cases NEVER see the judicial system because plaintiffs cannot afford to pay the exhorbent fees of an attorney that gets paid hour for hour regardless of the outcome of the case.

That being said, there should be some changes to the system. We now have a system that allows people to sue for punitive damages solely because a medication or medical device, that passed FDA scrutiny, still hurt someone. If the device passes FDA scrutiny and no one hid information or lied to the FDA then hey shit happens. You should be compensated for actual damages and futures but no punitives. If the FDA system is screwed then it should be changed. There are cases where punitives are appropriate. The Ford Pinto "let em burn" memo from Lee Iaccoca should have exposed not only Ford to punitive damages but Ford officials should have faced criminal charges for wrecklessly endangering the lives of their customers and in some cases actual death.

There are ways to modify awards and keep them within the bounds of reason without using loser pays to bully people who were actually hurt from seeking compensation for their injuries.
Click to expand...

1) No, I do understand that defense lawyers also bribe (I mean lobby) the politicians.

2) Ok, good point on the close cases. I am not sure what the solution would be for that. I am simply sick of the frivilous... "oh I spilled coffee on myself and it was hot and therefore your fault" type of cases.

3) Why is it that we are the only ones (according to the article) that do not use the loser pays rules? I assume part of it is due to your point on close cases, but on the other hand we are the most litigious society on earth (my opinion) If it is so bad, then why have others not adopted our system or at least shifted away from the loser pays?
 
Superfreak said:
If there are such "serious negative consequences" then perhaps you could explain to me why we are the only court system to NOT have the "loser pays" rules. Not trying to be argumentative, I simply do not understand what the negatives of such a system would be.
Click to expand...


There are several negative consequences, a few of which Socrates has stated.

First of all, the fact that you may lose a lawsuit does not necessarily mean that your case was frivolous or wrong-headed and punishing people for pursuing their legal rights in a close case by forcing them to pay the legal fees of the opponent, over which they have absolutely no control, is inequitable. Additionally, the development of the law requires people to pursue cases where the outcome is not set in stone.

Secondly, and most importantly, a loser pays rule benefits the deeper pocket (which really is the whole point of the loser pays movement). Adding the prospect of having to pay a defendant's high-priced attorney's fees in addition to the plaintiff's own attorneys fees should a plaintiff lose would discourage people without money from pursuing legitimate claims more so that exists currently. There are plenty of mechanisms currently in existence to deal with frivolous claims without punishing people with legitimate claims that happen to lose.
 
Perhaps we should allow the jury to find at the conclusion of a case where they find no liability that the case was without merit and that the plaintiff should bear the cost of the litigation for the defendant. I might could find that acceptable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top