[Bigun]

Boy is this guy Right On!

[cripplecreek]

As Ive gotten older Ive begun to grasp just exactly why the attorneys are the first to die in rebellions.

[Atlas Sneezed]

95% of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name!

(I happen to put the blame first on the juries and judges. Remember, for every silly argument, there is a judge who allows it to proceed, and another attorney arguing against it.)

[SedVictaCatoni]

A few comments:

1. The author has done a good job of confusing the problems of irresponsible LAWYERS, irresponsible PLAINTIFFS, and irresponsible JURIES. Irresponsible lawyers encourage people to sue companies. Irresponsible plaintiffs did something stupid and now want to be wealthy as a result. And irresponsible juries are willing to give away someone else's money, because, hey, companies are loaded, right?

2. The author is a little too glib with the "unelected judges are subjugating us" rhetoric. Federal judges aren't elected, but state judges are in lots of states. And in any lawsuit of the type he's discussing, it's the state judges who will define the law, even if it's in federal court.

3. We've long since reached the point of diminishing returns ("Warning: do not drink this bottle of bleach."). However, product liability lawsuits did a lot of good in the past. They used to make some insanely dangerous products, that nobody in their right mind would manufacture anymore.

[aculeus]

Down with rule by lawyers bump.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Here's a little essay you might enjoy as well.

"When Absurdity Became Law"

[DLfromthedesert]

Thank you for posting this. I get this publication, and I passed it on to a pediatric surgeon with whom I work (I'm an RN in a NICU). One of her partners will have no malpractice insurance as of April 1.

[mongrel]

Could we have a class-action lawsuit against the unethical trial lawyers? Maybe that would stop them.

[Fiddlstix]

[i_dont_chat]

In Texas, a woman dentist who found out that her dentist husband was cheating on her ran him over in a Hilton parking lot. We used to see clearly that it would be wrong in such a case to sue Hilton hotels for negligent training of employees – thus for making it too easy for wives to run over their cheating husbands. But that’s what happened.

The author significantly misrepresented WHY the Hilton Hotel was sued because of the actions of its employees.

If the employees had called the police when Mrs. Harris physically attacked her husband's lover in the Hotel Lobby, the evening would have ended quite differently. In fact, it was the hotel's employee who literally placed Mrs. Harris behind the wheel of her automobile -- when she was clearly too upset to be driving.

I see fault with how Hilton's employees handled this explosive situation. I believe the hotel's management was correct in admitting negligence in the training of their employees.

[KevinB]

The article displays an embarrassing lack of understanding on the part of the author. I'm not going to address every misstatement in the article, but here are a couple of points to consider:

1. Most of the lawsuits he mentions went nowhere;

2. In a majority of states, contributory negligence is the rule. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% responsible for his damages, he/she gets nothing.

3. Recent rule changes have actually, in theory at least, made it more, not less, difficult for lawyers to bring frivolous lawsuits.

4. Broadened discovery rules make the litigation process more, not less, fair to all litigants. Shouldn't a defendant in a slip and fall case be able to discover whether the plaintiff had had treatment for a previous neck injury?

5. If you want to blame someone, blame judges (for not granting sanctions in more cases) and juries (for making ridiculous awards), not lawyers.

I know it's good sport to bash the legal profession, but I can honestly tell you after twenty years of law practice that 90% of lawyers work hard to hold themselves to a higher standard.

[atomicpossum]

Some points of mine, FWIW:

1. Costs to industry and medicine go beyond settlements and awards. There is also the cost of defensive behavior designed to eliminate chances for suits. This is an every day expense and factors in all costs we, as consumers, pay.
2. Litigation, the argument goes, is such an onerous burden that it will cause people to be more careful-- but the actual argument for that premise admits to the increases in cost that it inflicts on the system, which, of course, we all pay. Where do we draw the line of cost vs. benefit? Health care, it seems, has already gone far beyond that point...
3. If it makes money, it will attract more of that activity. If lawsuits become profitable, an entire class will (and has) developed to do nothing else but sue....regardless of the merits of the case.
4. How is paying a settlement on a meritless case any different from paying the Mafia protection money to keep from burning down your store?

Can we form a class-action suit against trial lawyers for the costs they've inflicted on us all?

[philetus]

Laws have been passed that primarly help lawyers.
Politicians make and pass the laws.
Politicians are lawyers

[scoopscandal]

Thought you'd be interested in following this thread...

Kindest Regards,

[duckandcover]

Maybe the Free Republic will be sued in class action for writing articles that are too long.

This cases unnecesary eye strain and neck problems looking at the computer screen. Thus, this contributes to medical problems that might have to be paid for by the state if someone on "public aid" were to read this article (on a public library computer, for example) and developed severe myopia and crooked neck.

Hmmmm.....

Could be a whole new world of class actions.

[longtermmemmory]

What is going on in the civil arena is the expansion of the concept of "proximate cause". Where before we had a line where responsibility stopped. (ie the car thief who steals a car does not make the car owner responsible.)

I would support a "personal resonsibility rule". We could call it "the dumb sh*t rule" If you are that dumb you deserve it.

Additionally those who support looser pays need to realise we already have that. Court costs (depositions, experts, service, etc.) are automatically chargable to the loosing party. Insurance contracts almost universally contain a prevailing party attorney fee clause. The fact of life is that the loosing plaintiff is generally peniless. So even prevailing for such "loser pays" is pointless. Since the USA abolished debtor's prisons and indentured servitude there is no way to force collection.

Perhaps we can shut down the number of state law schools. Does ANY state need more than three law schools?

[LTCJ]

BTTT

Read later.

[CapandBall]

“Ask Scruggs if trial lawyers are trying to run America, and he doesn’t bother to deny it: ‘Somebody’s got to do it.’”

Q.E.D. never vote for lawyers...

[Registered]

Hey, have you seen this?! It's great.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nice post!