AAA faces [spurious] lawsuit

[SpencerH]

If you're looking for frivolous lawsuits hows about this gem of a decision

"NEW YORK - The crashing of a hijacked jetliner was the kind of "foreseeable risk" that the airline industry should have guarded against, a judge ruled Tuesday as he permitted lawsuits related to the Sept. 11 attacks to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said negligent security screening could have contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people in the 2001 attacks."

That judge must have one hell of a crystal ball!

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Tsk, tsk!

Originally posted by SpencerH
The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS

Oh good god. He didn't, did he? Oh, he did...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that book, by itself, totally invalidates anything that guy has ever said or wrote EVER .

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Certainly, but the issue is also verdicts. Basically, since people can sue for almost any reason, of course there will be a lot of bull**** lawsuits.

But of something is totally crap, it should be a judge that tosses it long before it gets to a jury. In Canada, the trial procedure rules in every province provide a number of mechanisms to eliminate totally invalid lawsuits. Canada still has some weird decisions at times but generally they are fewer because

1. civil trials are USUALLY before a judge alone-- juries are possible but pretty rare. Judges tend to not get as inflamed into big awards

2. Civil trial rules provide that the unsuccessful plaintiff is responsible for " costs" to the successful defendent. These costs can be actual costs if the unsuccessful plaintiff rejects settlement offers that excede what they get at trial. Settlement offers are sent to the opposing party and sealed at court to avail of these provisions.

The result of all this is that its not all upside in suing someone if you could face a bill for hundreds of thousands for bringing one of these lawsuits-- The clients pay, not the lawyers.

3. Pain and suffereing was cappped in the 70s at a maximum award of 100,000 ( growing with inflation)-- it now sits at around 300,000. To get more, you have to prove actual damages, lost wages or losses or get punitive damages.

4. Judges rarely apply punitive damages in Canada.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wouldn't mind a cap on pain & suffering, but punitive damages have to stay. Companies that **** over people should have to pay a huge damage just to make them think if they ever try it again.

[Flubber]

As for the AAA case, there is no way the plaintiff should succeed on the facts presented here. First to find that AAA had a duty to bring a non-member 60 miles right away when they are already in a developed commercial area seems totally unreasonable. I don't see what else he failed to do here. He did not place her in a dangerous situation and he did not leave her in a dangerous situation.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I wouldn't mind a cap on pain & suffering, but punitive damages have to stay. Companies that **** over people should have to pay a huge damage just to make them think if they ever try it again.

Punitives still apply and in some instances are quite large but there has to be some major bad behavior for most judges to go that route

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean like what McDonald's did in the coffee case?

[Arrian]

Speaking of punative damages, some state courts have decided that punative damages are insurable. Think about that for a second. What is the purpose of assinging punative damages? Right, to PUNISH. So if it's insurable, does that not defeat the purpose of assigning punative damages?


-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
But of something is totally crap, it should be a judge that tosses it long before it gets to a jury. In Canada, the trial procedure rules in every province provide a number of mechanisms to eliminate totally invalid lawsuits.

We have that.

2. Civil trial rules provide that the unsuccessful plaintiff is responsible for " costs" to the successful defendent. These costs can be actual costs if the unsuccessful plaintiff rejects settlement offers that excede what they get at trial. Settlement offers are sent to the opposing party and sealed at court to avail of these provisions.

This would eliminate a lot of lawsuits, as most people would never risk a lawsuit against someone with deep pockets who could smother them with lawyers. A lot of wronged people would be screwed by this and a lot of corporations would be able to get away with murder.

You should only have to pay the otherside's costs if yuor suit is frivolous.

3. Pain and suffereing was cappped in the 70s at a maximum award of 100,000 ( growing with inflation)-- it now sits at around 300,000. To get more, you have to prove actual damages, lost wages or losses or get punitive damages.

That's crap. They're trying to do this here in Florida. I know a man whose father had the wrong foot amputated (and he still had to lose the correct foot). How do you put a cap on the pain and suffering of never being able to walk again!?!

4. Judges rarely apply punitive damages in Canada.

Then Canada sux.

[Arrian]

How do you put a cap on the pain and suffering of never being able to walk again!?!

How do you decide what never being able to walk again is worth? Same problem. So, unless we intend to provide infinite sums of money to everyone who is horribly wronged, there has to be SOME cap.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian
Speaking of punative damages, some state courts have decided that punative damages are insurable. Think about that for a second. What is the purpose of assinging punative damages? Right, to PUNISH. So if it's insurable, does that not defeat the purpose of assigning punative damages?


-Arrian

Thats crazy--- I'm thinking that the insurers involved are busy revising there policies to alter that situation

[Arrian]

as if it were that simple.

Such re-wording would probably be struck down by the state insurance commissioner, since it violates the spirit of the court ruling that punative damages are insurable.

It's public policy (terrible public policy, IMO), and what the insurance policy actually says doesn't seem to matter.

-Arrian

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

4. Judges rarely apply punitive damages in Canada.

Then Canada sux.

And all of Europe. You finally agree with Slow.

[st_swithin]

I'm feeling fehklempt.

The topic today is "Tony Kaye's frivolous lawsuit over wanting his director credit of 'American History X' to be under the name Humpty Dumpty."

Tawk amongst yaselves.