Tort Reform...

TheDanold said:
Crocodile tears, you got your millions and you said you were going to celebrate. Look if you feel bad for them then I can respect someone maintaining a quiet dignity about the result, but when you won you wanted to celebrate and party so spare us your bullshit reason of compassion, the trial is over.
Click to expand...

I celebrated with the person who was injured so I think it was an okay thing to do, the person who went throught it wanted to celebrate the fact that the American Justice system worked and, as much as is possable by humans, she was compensated. I think that is something to celebrate. She was celebrating the fact that she will not have to live in an institution the rest of her life. I was not celebrating the fact she was injured, I was celebrating that in as much as is possable, she was vindicated. They tried to say it was her fault, and now as a matter of LAW it was not her fault!
 
TheDanold said:
Uh what market? This is a jury, not a market.
They have nothing to lose as they don't buy your product or service. Their decision rests on how bad they feel for the victim and how much they dislike the company.
Why on earth would you try and pass off just about the most basic piece of government like a court as a "free market"?
Click to expand...



I am talking about what percentage of the award the client is willing to pay me. The jury does not pay me, the client pays me a percentage of the result. A client can negotiate what percent they pay me or hire an attorney by the hour if they choose.
 
Jarod said:
I celebrated with the person who was injured so I think it was an okay thing to do, the person who went throught it wanted to celebrate the fact that the American Justice system worked and, as much as is possable by humans, she was compensated. I think that is something to celebrate. She was celebrating the fact that she will not have to live in an institution the rest of her life. I was not celebrating the fact she was injured, I was celebrating that in as much as is possable, she was vindicated. They tried to say it was her fault, and now as a matter of LAW it was not her fault!
Click to expand...

Jarod, the title of your thread was not about your victim, it was how much money you got in the award: 13 million.
Face it, you had money on your mind.
 
The title of my thread was about caps... you are the one who made it about the award.
 
Jarod said:
I am talking about what percentage of the award the client is willing to pay me. The jury does not pay me, the client pays me a percentage of the result. A client can negotiate what percent they pay me or hire an attorney by the hour if they choose.
Click to expand...

I already said I don't favor caps on what your client pays you, I favor caps on awards themselves.
 
Jarod said:
Ahhh, I see and how would you set those caps?
Click to expand...
Good question. I would say use precedents from say the average from previous cases with each instance adjusted for inflation. The system used to be reasonable.

If a victim had what happened to your client happen in 1960 then take the award then, adjust it for inflation and you have your amount for today.

Like it or not Alex, you and all lawyers have their role like anyone but you don't produce anything, your income relies on the production of others (ie: companies), take too much and you won't have anyone to take from.
 
Jarod said:
I have no problem with that, I am proud of a job well done. I can celebrate it, just as my client did! When a police officer catches a Murderer should he not celebrate? Should he stay home out of respect for the victim?
Click to expand...

I think a more appropriate comparison is would he rush out telling everyone the fat bonus he got or how he did the right thing and got the fucker?
 
Jarod said:
So... any think the Government should impose CAPS?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. It seems that in many highly publicized cases awards appear to be excessive, but we don't hear the details of the majority of cases that are heard. Not only that, the details of those cases that are reported are sometimes skewed by the media and definitely are cherry-picked when reported third- or 50th-hand.

Perhaps a better means of jury selection might be in order but I have absolutely no idea how that could be accomplished; our system is flawed but every time short-sighted attempts are made to control or alter something it seems to be made far worse.

Award caps might be appealing in principle, but in reality this is more likely to become punitive to deserving plaintiffs and allow transgressors easy egress from responsibility for their misdeeds.
 
TheDanold said:
And what happens when the punitive amount is frivolous?

"A jury ordered General Motors to pay $4.9 billion Friday to six burn victims who were permanently disfigured when their car burst into flames after being hit in a rear-end collision."
http://money.cnn.com/1999/07/09/home_auto/gm_verdict_a/

Those people should be paid a lot, a few million easily, but let's be realistic, a few of those lawsuits would put GM out of business throwing hundreds of thousands out of work.

You also forget that the negative publicity alone is enough to make companies change. Look at the lead paint problem with toys, no one has even sued and already the companies have forced suppliers to change or have changed suppliers.
Punitive awards are largely unneeded, the publicity alone as proven above is a far bigger and less deterrent.
Click to expand...
Let me tell you something about that verdict. While the damages phase was going on upstairs in the courtnhouse and GM's lawyers were telling the Jury "we get it. we understand" They had people passing out pamphlets downstairs decrying the verdict. Calling the jury stupid and ill informed. What those people did not know was that one of the Para-legals from the plaintiff's firm was late getting back to court and got one of the fliers which then became part of the Plaintiff's closing. GM and Ford before then KNEW of the danger. Firestone knew months BEFORE the blowouts started that their tires were going to kill people. If you or I do something that we know or should have known was going to cause someones death we would go to PRISON. YOu can't throw GM, FOrd or Firestone in prison. So you hit them where it hurts. Monetarily it is ALL they understand. YOu do understand the definitiion of punative right? It means to PUNISH.
 
Many of the large lawsuit awards that are touted to promote "tort reform" are greatly reduced in the end.

imho tort reform is just a way to screw the little guy and protect the big guy.
 
Last edited:
I am pleased with this response, people are starting to learn about lawsuits and will not likely support caps.
 
I would never want caps. Businesses factor in the costs of death. If they know that a product will cause deaths, as it was proved GM knew, they will project the likely costs to them of paying out on those deaths, vs the projected costs of a recall and a fix. And if it costs more to recall, they will go with the deaths. That is what a bussiness does. It makes money. It is not moral, nor is it immoral. It is amoral. It exists to earn the highest possible profit.

Therefore, society, in order to save lives, must make it cost more not to recall. That is why I am dead set against tort reform, and only dummies or the very rich are for it.
 
Darla said:
I would never want caps. Businesses factor in the costs of death. If they know that a product will cause deaths, as it was proved GM knew, they will project the likely costs to them of paying out on those deaths, vs the projected costs of a recall and a fix. And if it costs more to recall, they will go with the deaths. That is what a bussiness does. It makes money. It is not moral, nor is it immoral. It is amoral. It exists to earn the highest possible profit.

Therefore, society, in order to save lives, must make it cost more not to recall. That is why I am dead set against tort reform, and only dummies or the very rich are for it.
Click to expand...

No, darla. There need to be some changes made. The cost of doing anything is made prohibitive with excessive litigation. Rewards should be limited to actual damages. No 12 million bucks for hot coffee bullshit. I know your parasitic lawyer friends love the system, but it comes out of everyone else's ass.
 
Darla said:
I would never want caps. Businesses factor in the costs of death. If they know that a product will cause deaths, as it was proved GM knew, they will project the likely costs to them of paying out on those deaths, vs the projected costs of a recall and a fix. And if it costs more to recall, they will go with the deaths. That is what a bussiness does. It makes money. It is not moral, nor is it immoral. It is amoral. It exists to earn the highest possible profit.

Therefore, society, in order to save lives, must make it cost more not to recall. That is why I am dead set against tort reform, and only dummies or the very rich are for it.
Click to expand...


I am not against all types of tort reform, but I am aganist any this current group of crooks have promoted.
 
I think if it can be proven that they knew of a safety hazard and made this cost analysis with lives and safety, they SHOULD be put in jail. Ridiculizing the judicial system is not the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top