America, land of the....sued

[CerberusIV]

I'm not sure if it is true but I have heard that Adolf Hitler once said "I shall not rest until every German realises it is a disgrace to be a lawyer".

If it is true then I agree with him on one thing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The problem is that in many cases, the people actually win those Silly Lawsuits... sigh...

... and then are reversed on Appeal, but that doesn't make good sensationalist news, does it?

--

And besides MOST of the changes in the law or practices came from lawsuits. Ford stopped making deathtraps like the Pinto because they were sued!

I think this bears repeating for those who want to ignore the reality of the situation.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Spiffor
2 months in jail for wasting the court's time is harsh, to say the least. I agree her case should have been dismissed as soon as the judge has seen it, and she should have paid a big fine for her absurd case. But 2 months in prison ? I don't call this justice

She had the choice between paying 50000$ or 2 months in Jail. She chose jail. As we all know, she'll be out in 2 weeks.

Spec.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Spectator


WRONG?!?! WRONG!?!?!?! What the **** is wrong there? The stupid old bag tried to dry her cat in a MICROWAVE!!!

Spec.

That would be called an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/micropet.htm

[Flubber]

Most of the silliest wins come from jury trials. I think most other places use them much more rarely than the US.

In Canada, a jury trial is possible in civil matters but it represents a miniscule proportion of matters going to trial.

Most of the silliest decisions are reversed on appeal . . . whether the decision was jury or judge.

For example I remember a thread where people decried the Canadian court system when a judge acquitted an inmate of a weapons charge when he had fashioned a weapon out of available materials. People even characterized the decision as providing the prisoners with a "right" to arm themselves. I saw in the paper this weekend that the trial court reversed 3-0 on appeal in a pretty forthright decision.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Lonestar


That would be called an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/micropet.htm

EDIT: That is not what I heard happened. The cat did not exploded but died because it's fluid boiled and the cat's brain died of "overheating". But ok, I give you that one, I didn't know. Anyhow, you know what I mean, I could find hundreds of examples like that one.

BTW, I wonder why it says:" Dont use while wearing clothes" in the instruction manual of an iron. Maybe someone sued....

Spec.

[ThePantaloonDog]

A lot of these are reversed, I believe the 'McDonald's coffee is too hot' case got thrown out just recently.

The trouble with much AMerica's civil legal system is juries. Many of these outrageous lawsuits are won in jury trials, usually when a judge gets a hold of the case they throw it out as frivilous. The reasons for this I can't fully explain but juries in civil courts are one of the major problems in our legal system.

[Dis]

I hadn't heard the mcdonald's burn case got thrown out.

The woman did burn the hell out of her cooch.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Dissident
I hadn't heard the mcdonald's burn case got thrown out.

The woman did burn the hell out of her cooch.

Yea well she deserved it. Who drives around with a hot coffee between his/her legs. To me, that's just looking for trouble.
Next time she'll buy a car with a cup holder.

Spec.

[Dis]

well I agree.

but we have to protect stupid people from themselves. I believe that is in the constitution now.

[Spiffor]

What disturbs me is the willingness to find a culprit for every accident that happens, or every stupidity.
This trend has originated in the US, but is now spreading in the rest of the world (of the West at least). It doesn't only lie on the greed of the complainants. It also lies on the belief every problem is somebody's fault.

I've read an interesting book, where the author explains how today's consumer, who just loves to be pampered, is glorifying both the children and the victims, for they symbolize the complete lack of responsibility. You might want to check out Pascal Bruckner's The Temptation of Innocence (I thought it was an eye opener when I was 18).

The trend of going to court for whatever reason, even when the problem is the complainant's fault, seems to be a consequence of this glorification of irresponsibility. Whereas judges follow the logic of the law, juries are sympathetic to the plight of the complainant. And the one who should be responsible in all cases, the incriminated professional, must pay ridiculous amounts.

I don't know if you had such a case on your side of the pond, but a case in France one year ago really hit the fan. A mentally-handicapped boy was born in the early 80's, after the doctor didn't detect any abnormality. In 2002, the mother's problem was the survival of her son once she'll die of old age. Guess what she did to find money for her son ? Did she turn to welfare ? Did she turn to charity ? No, she sued the doctor who made a mistake 20 years ago, and the worst is that she won. Needless to say, as it was a precedent, all doctors were threatened to have such trials for every error with dire consequences they have made. Insurance premiums for doctors skyrocketed. Luckily, the politicians put a stop to this madness.
This woman wanted to milk millions from a doctor because of her child being handicapped. I think it is the worse case of "stupid trials" I've heard of until now.

(If you are interested in this matter, the whole affair is called "arrêt Perruche" )

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think this bears repeating for those who want to ignore the reality of the situation.

Che quoted me and agreed! I feel 'shock and awe' .

The trouble with much AMerica's civil legal system is juries. Many of these outrageous lawsuits are won in jury trials, usually when a judge gets a hold of the case they throw it out as frivilous. The reasons for this I can't fully explain but juries in civil courts are one of the major problems in our legal system.

That does seem to the be the interesting part. Many judges would love to rule opposite of the jury on some cases, but a JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) can only be used sparingly. We aren't doing a good job as juries. This is reason #4023 for why we should teach MORE civics in schools (especially in elementary schools). Tell people what the system is!

[Spec]

Originally posted by Dissident
well I agree.

but we have to protect stupid people from themselves. I believe that is in the constitution now.

That's funny....but sadning at the same time....


Spec.

[TheStinger]

In the UK we realise we can't trust people in civil cases. The problem is that juries will find for the plantiff because they are usually aginst a corporation or someone with insurance and they therefreo don't see the harm in finding for them.

Civil cases are often about the law rtaher than who you believe as in a criminal case. Judges should make the decision.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What disturbs me is the willingness to find a culprit for every accident that happens, or every stupidity.
This trend has originated in the US, but is now spreading in the rest of the world (of the West at least). It doesn't only lie on the greed of the complainants. It also lies on the belief every problem is somebody's fault.
The trend of going to court for whatever reason, even when the problem is the complainant's fault, seems to be a consequence of this glorification of irresponsibility. Whereas judges follow the logic of the law, juries are sympathetic to the plight of the complainant. And the one who should be responsible in all cases, the incriminated professional, must pay ridiculous amounts.

Exactly the problem. If you make a mistake anywhere, you can get sued, and if you're just plain stupid, you can sue. Where is the, "humans make mistakes", "people learn from their mistakes", "only god doesn't make mistakes" and so on... There is no margin of error anymore.

What gets to me is exactly this:
If I'm walking down the street and I'm looking at a nice looking car (An RX-7 or something ) and break my foot because I trip on a crack in the street, I can sue!! It would be my frikin fault! I'm the one not looking in front of me, cracks are a normal thing in streets, the city cant check every street for every crack. Injuries are part of life, otherwise, we would'nt have evolved to heal...

Spec.