Welcome to the world of frivolous lawsuits

[Q Classic]

you know, that jelly must have tasted pretty bad.... unless it was flavoured....

"who has time to read directions these days"

rtfm. RTFM RTFM!

[Q Classic]

*whew*

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/jelly.htm

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


$300,000 for negligently or recklessly inflicted quadroplegia is ridiculous. Imagine spending 40 or more years of your life that way, for no reason other than the stupidity or recklessness of someone else, and getting a mere 20 dollars a day to "compensate" for all the experiences of life that you are forced to lose do to the actions of another.

Economic loss is nothing - it's subject to all sorts of provability and debate, and in the end, does nothing to "compensate" you, it only sees that you would have had something approaching what you would have had anyway.

And you can combine the two in nasty ways, for example, my brother never had a chance in litigation against the VA medical system (despite repeated hair-raising episodes of butchery) because what are the "economic losses" of a disabled veteran with psych problems? Nobody would hire him anyway, since he was a crippled vet with a screw loose, so his compensible economic value was very low.

Capping certain types of lesser injury claims is one thing, but capping all types of pain and suffering claims, even when there's reckless or grossly negligent conduct resulting in severe injury, is just a subsidy to those who are reckless and grossly negligent. Personally, if that type of system was instituted, I'd be more inclined towards vigilantism.

Your point is well taken . . . NO AMOUNT of money can ever compensate a person for the pain, suffering and loss of amenities that come with a horrific injury. That was kind of the point the Supreme Court of Canada made in these cases. A trillion dollars would not fix things, no amount of money can . . . yet the court only can award money. Instead of going into the ever-escalating world of " how awful !" that leads to ever escalating awards, the court said lets come to an amount and just say thats it. The decision is actually pretty logical although you may disagree with its basic premises. I would prefer the amount was a bit higher but I have no problem with such an ultimate limit on something that is really, not capable of quantification.

As for 20 bucks a day . .. don't be cute here. Even invested at 5%, $300,000 nets more than that per day without touching the principal amount, and despite your brother's example, economic loss is compensable separately. Anyone such as myself with a horrific injury would do fine financially since I have proven and provable earnings. Even the unemployed are granted compensation based on their likely employment income. IN your brother's instance, while I may sympathyze, its not the tortfeasor's job to provide an income where it did not previously exist . . Their sole job is to make right, to the extent money can , for the loss caused by them . Taking care of a disabled vet is a societal/ governmental responsibility, NOT some tortfeasor.


You mention gross negligence . . . that is a separate topic and is not capped. Such awards are difficult to obtain but it is possible to get punitive or exemplary damages. These are unrelated really to the damage caused but are used to punish parties for exceptional bad conduct.


There is no subsidy here. What the court did was take away from the uncertainty of pain and suffering awards and institute some clarity. WE have avoided the situation where one court awards 200,000 for the same injuries that garnered 1 million in another court.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why not? The thread is about stupid lawsuits and this certainly qualifies.

If you've got the filing fee and can spring for service of process, you can sue me for directing those aliens to your house and molesting your teeth. That's not a fault of the system, because the court is not equipped (especially, since there's only one party's version of events anyway) to make judgments of fact or law right at initial filing, without evidence. That's a formula for corruption of the most extreme kind.

If I give you a hundred grand to go away, is that the fault of the legal system, or my own stupidity?

In the PM case, first thing I'd do is make a special appearance to file a motion to separate the defendants due to improper joinder. Unless the plaintiff's mother was a PM employee somehow involved in the manufacture of the cigarette, the causes of action against her, and the causes of action against PM, are already separate. If that motion failed at the local trial court, since it's a special appearance matter relating to jurisdiction over the defendent, there's an immediate right to appeal, since there's a question of law as to whether the court has a right to hear a case against that defendant. I should be able to keep the case tied up on appeal for a year or two without even filing an answer to the original complaint. That'll put a damper on the plaintiff's lawyer's enthusiasm.

Then I go through my lobbying and PR connections, and find somebody who owes me a favor, is deniably distant from PM, and owns (or is owed by) a good elected public servant in Texas, the state of. I call in my card, and set in motion a suggestion of concern about how whatever agency in Texas is responsible for child welfare is doing it's job. Imagine this poor girl, horribly burned because her mother leaves her in a car with a defective lighter that she's complained about in the past. "Oh, it wasn't the lighter, it was the burning cigarette I left on the seat when I illegally left my daughter in the car." Now that mommie dearest has the state all over her ass, she'll have a couple of other things on her mind. Now I need to find myself a zealous DA from the county she used to live in, and find a way to persuade him or her to move forward on a child endangerment charge.

And meanwhile, the suit against my client, PM, is still waiting it's initial hearing date on the matter of the improper joinder. That's how the system works.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If you've got the filing fee and can spring for service of process, you can sue me for directing those aliens to your house and molesting your teeth.

Probably not considering I'd get Rule 11'ed out the arse by any half sane judge. That didn't happen in this case.

Here's another amusing one closer to home for you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber
Your point is well taken . . . NO AMOUNT of money can ever compensate a person for the pain, suffering and loss of amenities that come with a horrific injury. That was kind of the point the Supreme Court of Canada made in these cases. A trillion dollars would not fix things, no amount of money can . . . yet the court only can award money. Instead of going into the ever-escalating world of " how awful !" that leads to ever escalating awards, the court said lets come to an amount and just say thats it. The decision is actually pretty logical although you may disagree with its basic premises. I would prefer the amount was a bit higher but I have no problem with such an ultimate limit on something that is really, not capable of quantification.

Since quadroplegia is valued so low, then I assume paraplegia or double amputation would be much lower - and something like being in excruciating pain due to back injuries (something I've had going for well over a decade now) would be considered almost trivial. It seems to me the "can't be quantified" argument has been distorted to a "don't hurt the tortfeasor, there's already been enough pain and suffering" bit.

As for 20 bucks a day . .. don't be cute here. Even invested at 5%, $300,000 nets more than that per day without touching the principal amount, and despite your brother's example, economic loss is compensable separately.

At 5%, which isn't too easy to obtain here at the present time on a low risk, liquid basis, it would be a whopping 40 bucks a day. Unfortunately, interest earnings are taxable, and as I said, getting a safe, liquid five percent here isn't easy.

Anyone such as myself with a horrific injury would do fine financially since I have proven and provable earnings. Even the unemployed are granted compensation based on their likely employment income. IN your brother's instance, while I may sympathyze, its not the tortfeasor's job to provide an income where it did not previously exist

There are a few aspects to this, at least in his instance. One, his disability was caused by the same entity that was the later tortfeasor, although a different bureaucratic incarnation. Using lack of income caused by military service disability, then delaying that disability award for 18 years of legal fights due to a desire to deny further factual bases for agent orange claims, then using that "income history" smacks of the worst kind of manipulation and injustice. But the Federal government is immune from liability for ****ing people up in military service, regardless of the reason, the VA is immune from any liability other than retroactive application of veteran's benefits (in the settlement, after 18 years, they agreed that date of disability was to be set at date of separation from service, but that no money was to be paid for retroactive benefits. The difference is that the going forward disability amount was based on an E-7's pay with 20 years service, not an E-4's pay with three years of service. For the 18 intervening years, it was "sorry Charlie, you shoulda gone to Canada."

If the jury is forced to consider lack of steady income for 18 years in earnings calculations, but has the leeway to make an award it feels is right on the pain and suffering side of things, then the jury has the flexibility to reach a just solution, as opposed to a technically correct one.

. . Their sole job is to make right, to the extent money can , for the loss caused by them . Taking care of a disabled vet is a societal/ governmental responsibility, NOT some tortfeasor.

The tortfeasor was the United States of America, Department of Veterans Affairs. The medical malpractice issues were mooted by the subsequent killing of my brother due to further medical malpractice, then the issue became one of wrongful death, with past evidence of negligence, gross negligence and multiple independent instances of medical malpractice excluded, on the convenient grounds that they did not pertain to the issue of economic loss that is the basis of awards for wrongful death.

The "admissible" evidence was so skewed that we were not allowed to discuss the classified portion of his service record, Agent Orange, his history of denial of disability claims going back to 1971, or any pending dispute of the government claim that cause of death was non-service related. What was allowed to be presented to the jury was that he was in effect an unproductive bum who never bothered to hold down a job, that out of the goodness of their hearts, the VA took in this whiny no-account veteran, and that he shortly thereafter got cancer and died, while the VA nobly did all it could to save him, and now his ingrate family is trying to milk the government for a wrongful death claim so they can all live on easy street.

You mention gross negligence . . . that is a separate topic and is not capped. Such awards are difficult to obtain but it is possible to get punitive or exemplary damages. These are unrelated really to the damage caused but are used to punish parties for exceptional bad conduct.

The "tort reform" movement in the US makes no such distinctions, and is purely an insurance company and corporate malfeasor's whore movement. The general goal is to limit all non-economic damages.

There is no subsidy here. What the court did was take away from the uncertainty of pain and suffering awards and institute some clarity. WE have avoided the situation where one court awards 200,000 for the same injuries that garnered 1 million in another court.

I have no problems with minimums for all types of injuries, and maximums for non-severe, non-fundamentally life altering injuries. Beyond that, you establish a system where tortfeasors have relatively little to fear from a little occasional negligence, or taking the occasional safety shortcut, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Probably not considering I'd get Rule 11'ed out the arse by any half sane judge. That didn't happen in this case.

Here's another amusing one closer to home for you.

You'd only get Rule 11'd if I filed the motions for it. A lot of defendant's lawyers like to perpetuate this crap too, so they always tell you how judges are hostile to pre-trial law and motion, and let's just answer and go through a huge amount of discovery, and wrack up those fees, before we tell you to settle.

It all comes down to this (from your link):

"When such lawsuits do arise, it is usually cheaper to settle than to fight the claim in court. The results are higher insurance premiums, medical bills, and other goods and services for the rest of us."

It's only cheaper to settle in isolation. If you consider the costs of a system that encourages frivolous lawsuits and quick jerkoff settlements, then you can see how grinding plaintiff's lawyers into the dirt and making them work for a living pays off in the long run. The courts are more hostile to frivlous cases, due to their increasing case load. Plaintiff's lawyers will tell their clients "95% of these cases get you and me ground into the dirt and you don't get a dime, while I have to stop supporting my mistress and take out a third mortgage on my vacation home, so I wont take this on a contingency basis" instead of the current "95% of these cases settle quickly, so let me explain our contingency fee structure." Plaintiff's lawyers would also have to carry large professional staffs, like real law firms, and have a high lawyer to support staff ratio, like real law firms, because their fleets of paralegals who can draft boilerplate tort complaints can't handle law and motion work and complex discovery.

I think of it as being like any other marketplace - just think of this as the tort litigation market. We don't want excessive regulation, high barriers to entry, or government mandated caps on results. We want a level playing field, where results are obtained for hard, successful work, and halfassed work leaves you unable to compete in the marketplace.

[:) Smiley]

Many products, particularly chemicals, have labelling that says "It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a way inconsistent with its labeling". Why is it you never hear of people being prosecuted on those grounds?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Unfortunately, in the US, each side pays costs and attorney's fees unless otherwise agreed by contract, or specifically addressed by statute.

That's the rule for attorney fees. Costs (certain specific expenses such as filing fees, jury fees, etc) are paid by the losing party.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not in all states, IIRC, there's some difference both as to definition of "costs" and whether a prevailing party is entitled to costs.

[The Templar]

New Rule:

Assertions of the existence ridiculous tort cases must include a citation to a reporter containing the decision. No cite and the tort does not exist.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Unfortunately, in the US, each side pays costs and attorney's fees unless otherwise agreed by contract, or specifically addressed by statute.

Have to disagree here. The American rule (the British rule requires the losing party to pay the winning party's costs) is the lesser of all evils. The idea is thus: just because the losing party loses does not mean that the winning party was factually correct.

For example, Ming may have swung his fist recklessly on the subway and injured me, but for whatever reason, I couldn't meet a preponderance of the evidence test that Ming in fact was reckless. Perhaps the jury didn't believe my eyewitness. Perhaps I even knew that my evidence was skating really close to preponderance and the case could go either way. Let's also say Ming is rich and hires Proskauer for his defence. All of these facts might disincentivize me from seeking redress against for actual negligece because I am worried about losing and having to pay for Proskauer. This effectively closes the court to the poor or those who are financially overmatched. In fact, it incentivizes Ming to threaten to overspend on defense in order to scare me off.

Yes, I know, it is unfair to Ming if he has to pay for a frivolous suit. But the controlling concern is assuring access to the court for everyone. Moreover, since the jury in a tort renders a legal judgement under rules of evidence that often place other values before truth, we recognize that the jury is making a strictly legal judgement.

Also, put the shoe on the other foot - you don't want factually innocent defendants who lose in court to have to pay for the wrongful winners costs do you?

Yeah, the American Rule sucks, but the alternatives are worse.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like that new rule .

[Adam Smith]

OK, here's one I worked on as an expert witness.

See In re New Orleans Train Car Leakage Fire Litigation,
795 So.2d 364 (4th Cir. 2001).

http://www.hhlaw.com/site/pdf/ACCA_Feature.pdf

Potential Liability: A Case Study
A 1987 hazardous materials release in Louisiana illustrates the potential liabilities that can arise and why it is important to address them beforehand in contracts. The release occurred when a flammable gas, which had leaked from a rail tank car, ignited and caused an enormous explosion on CSX tracks. A National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) investigation concluded that the probable cause of the incident was the misalignment and subsequent tearing of an improperly installed gasket on the tank car’s bottom outlet. The NTSB found that the owner of the tank car, the company that had loaded the tank car, and the shipper, all of whom had certified on the bill of lading that the tank car was in proper condition for safe transportation, had not performed an adequate inspection of the tank car, which would have disclosed the improper and misaligned gasket. The fire caused thousands of nearby residents to be evacuated from their homes for 36 hours. Fortunately, no deaths or serious injuries occurred, and only limited property damage resulted from the release.

Despite these relatively modest losses, a jury awarded a record $3.4 billion in compensatory and mostly punitive damages. The original $2.5 billion punitive damage award imposed on CSX was reduced to $850 million on appeal and reportedly was settled for less than that amount. But this damage award was huge by any measure, especially considering that the NTSB had absolved CSX of any wrongdoing.

This was one of the first of the "environmental justice" lawsuits. Plaintiffs won this large award in part because they claimed that CSX switched tank cars in poor black neighborhoods of New Orleans, not in wealthy white neighborhoods. Somehow the jury managed to ignore the fact that the railroad yard was operating long before the surrounding houses were built.

Another favorite that I worked on was the spill of metam sodium, a herbicide, into the Sacramento River at Dunsmuir, California in 1991. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) filed a $1 bil suit claiming that Southern Pacific Railroad did not comply with federal regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials. The suit was thrown out of court because metam sodium was not considered a hazardous material at the time. (It is now)

[Imran Siddiqui]

You bolded the wrong part .

company that had loaded the tank car, and the shipper, all of whom had certified on the bill of lading that the tank car was in proper condition for safe transportation, had not performed an adequate inspection of the tank car, which would have disclosed the improper and misaligned gasket.

Despite these relatively modest losses, a jury awarded a record $3.4 billion in compensatory and mostly punitive damages.

The original $2.5 billion punitive damage award imposed on CSX was reduced to $850 million on appeal and reportedly was settled for less than that amount.

So, as usual practice, the damage award was reduced substantially on appeal. Also punitive damages mean don't do this again. The next time it could be WAAAY worse, even if the damages this time weren't that horrible.

I see nothing wrong with the case you cited.

Another favorite that I worked on was the spill of metam sodium, a herbicide, into the Sacramento River at Dunsmuir, California in 1991. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) filed a $1 bil suit claiming that Southern Pacific Railroad did not comply with federal regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials. The suit was thrown out of court because metam sodium was not considered a hazardous material at the time. (It is now)

What was wrong with that decision? The case was thrown out. Unless you think it was wrong that it was thrown out because metam sodium should have been characterized as a hazardous material at the time of trial?