Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
5 Comments
Ginrummy33says..."We are a nation of law"yers.
JiggaJonsonsays...I'm always unsure why people seem to have a problem with this. I suspect it's tort-reform-propaganda at work.
The amount of civil cases filed, aka access to the court system by the general public, should be considered an integral part of a healthy democracy.
"How often plaintiffs sue will also turn on the predictability
of the courts. Recall the standard model of litigation and settlement.
Litigation is more expensive than settlement, so disputants do best if they settle their quarrels out of court, all else equal. Suppose they know what a court will do. If so, they can settle their dispute by that expected litigated outcome and pocket the fees they would otherwise have paid their lawyers. The point is simple: if they know what a judge will do, they have no reason to ask him. Under this model, disputants primarily litigate rather than settle only when they each hold optimistic estimates of their prospects in court."
"Coffee spills, Pokemon class actions, tobacc o settlements. American courts have made a name for themselves as a wild lo ttery and a money machine for a lucky few lawyers. At least in part, however, the reput ation is unfounded. Ameri can courts seem to handle routine contract and to rt disputes as well as th eir peers in other wealthy democracies.
More generally, Americans do not file an unusually high numb er of law suits. They do not employ large numbers of judges or lawyers. They do not pay more than people in comparable countries to enforce contracts. And they do not pay unusually high prices for insurance against routine torts. "
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Ramseyer_681.pdf
"We are a nation of law"yers.
JiggaJonsonsays...@Ginrummy33
I'd also point to the Hot Coffee case as THE clearest example of tort reform propaganda that I'm aware of.
McDonald's had hundreds of burn complaints and it was their policy to keep the coffee at scalding temps to stop old people from drinking it too fast (they have to wait for it to cool) when they meet for their morning Blue Haired Neighborhood Committee meetings.
THEN this woman got burned. She only sued for the cost of her medical expenses, the jury awarded the extras for pain and suffering (she couldn't walk without a limp after when she was a spry tennis-playing old lady prior).
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW
https://travis.pflanz.me/wp-content/uploads/stella_liebeck_burned_by_mcdonalds_coffee.jpg
https://justineelkhazen.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/liebeck01.jpg?w=1400
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES NSFW
JiggaJonsonsays...*promote
siftbotsays...Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 6:15pm PST - promote requested by JiggaJonson.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.