ZOMG!!!!11!! Che Totally PWNED!

[chequita guevara]

From NPR this morning, filtered by my being half-asleep.

So the Supreme Court of the United States has just done a massive survey of the court system in the U.S. to see how they are handling frivolous lawsuits, i.e., tort abuse. Out of two millions cases, exactly 750 met the definition of a frivolous suit. Of those, a whopping 17 were handled incorrectly. So, what's the math on this?

750 / 2,000,000 = 0.375% of all cases are frivolous
17 / 750 = 2.2667% of those cases are handled incorrectly
17 / 2,000,000 = 0.00085% of all cases are abuses of the tort system.

Oh my, it's an epidemic that must be rectified immediately in order to save the republic from frivolous torts!

=============

See below, I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Apocalypse]

People who read Fark know that 17 is inaccurate.

[Kuciwalker]

Were the 750 other than those 17 settled? That would be a problem.

For that matter, which of those numbers, if any, count cases that were settled?

[Thedrin]

750/2000000 = 0.0375

[Caligastia]

Re: Tort Abuse! Oh noes!

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Out of two millions cases, exactly 750 met the definition of a frivolous suit.

How are they defining frivolous suits?

[Blaupanzer]

Thedrin, according to my calculator 750/2000000 = .000375 What's up with your math skills today?

[MRT144]

i got 42. what the ****

[MrFun]

Are communists naturally skilled in mathematics and statistics?

[Thedrin]

0.0375%

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Re: Tort Abuse! Oh noes!

Originally posted by Caligastia
How are they defining frivolous suits?

I assume those that have no legal merit, rather than which sounds totally ludicrous when you leave out half of the facts (which seem to prevade the internet).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun
Are communists naturally skilled in mathematics and statistics?

Kill one person its murder 10 million its a statistic.

They got their props when it comes to stats.


edit- whoops read skilled as "killed".

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Kill one person its murder 10 million its a statistic.

They got their props when it comes to stats.


edit- whoops read skilled as "killed".

Scary, isn't it?

[Flubber]

Re: Tort Abuse! Oh noes!

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
From NPR this morning, filtered by my being half-asleep.

So the Supreme Court of the United States has just done a massive survey of the court system in the U.S. to see how they are handling frivolous lawsuits, i.e., tort abuse. Out of two millions cases, exactly 750 met the definition of a frivolous suit. Of those, a whopping 17 were handled incorrectly. So, what's the math on this?

750 / 2,000,000 = 0.375% of all cases are frivolous
17 / 750 = 2.2667% of those cases are handled incorrectly
17 / 2,000,000 = 0.00085% of all cases are abuses of the tort system.

Oh my, it's an epidemic that must be rectified immediately in order to save the republic from frivolous torts!

Interesting numbers but I find them difficult to believe. The frivolous numbers just seem way too low. When I was in private practice we represented the physician's association. there were two individuals that brought about a lawsuit a week against some doctor or another-- since apparently the guy that bandaged their knee caused their supposed stroke or whatever.

These suits were invariably quickly turfed but if that was going on in a town of 100,000 in Canada, I would think there would be some wingnuts doing similar things in the US. Also I have seen US television programs that cited dozens of frivolous lawsuits-- The overall 750 number seems way too low.

Now I have no idea whether "tort reform" is needed in the US or not. I know that in Canada, the general civil trial rules that says "loser pays" the court costs of the winner---- works pretty well to cut down on frivolous lawsuits

[Flubber]

Re: Tort Abuse! Oh noes!

DP

[Caligastia]

Re: Re: Re: Tort Abuse! Oh noes!

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I assume those that have no legal merit, rather than which sounds totally ludicrous when you leave out half of the facts (which seem to prevade the internet).

How is it decided whether a case has legal merit or not? I mean, it depends on who is interpreting the law to some extent doesn't it?