Posted on 02/09/2007 8:13:36 AM PST by Graybeard58
They'll put a lien on your house, garnish your wages, take your car, clean out your bank account...you know, pretty much take every penny you have, now until forever.
The point is that you would be, literally, forced to bet the rest of your life.
Lawyer on board!!!
Pretty much what you have to do now to pay your lawyer when you have to defend yourself against a BS lawsuit.
Under "loser pays" the loser would be ordered to reimburse your expenses. Under the current system, you're just out that money.
"Alaska has loser a loser pays system" should have read "Alaska has a loser pays system".
How can I make an evaluation of my case without any information, RJL? You seem to think that just because a person is legitimately injured that he will be able to prove his case--this is amazingly naive! But how can an injured person evaluate his case without discovery? And you can't engage in discovery without filing a lawsuit, RJL. So you're really forcing people to guess--is that fair? And if a legitimately injured person decides to roll the dice and then goes through discovery and realizes that he cannot prove his case and is on the hook for, say, $1,000,000 at this point, what would you say to that person? How is that POSSIBLY good policy?
Under the current system if I get sued, I have to come up with $5 million to defend myself and I have virtually no chance of getting that money back even if I am totally innocent and the lawsuit is total BS.
You don't have to come up with $5 million to defend yourself, RJL. That's exactly the point. You can go out and get a lawyer to defend you for WAY less than $5 million. Do you not understand that big companies get better (and more expensive) lawyers than "little guys?"
Under the current system, if you personally get sued, chances are that you'd be able to find a lawyer to defend you for under $20,000--and that's assuming a really complex case. You don't go out and hire the same lawyer that Exxon hires--you don't hire a $1000 an hour guy; you might hire a guy that's $75 an hour, or a guy that gives you a flat rate.
You don't seem to understand that under a loser pays system, legal fees are a competitive weapon. If I'm a big company, and I know that I am dealing with a loser pays system, what incentive do I have to keep the legal fees down--after all, for a mega-cap company, $10 million is a drop in the bucket! In fact, don't I have an incentive to drive up the fees in the hopes that a smaller (and more risk-adverse) opponent yells uncle? Under a loser pays system, legal fees will increase because every major company will hire the most expensive lawyers it can find.
Anyway, this is a pointless coversation. We don't have loser pays, and we won't have loser pays because it's an amazingly dumb idea.
This is just not true.
So the worst of both worlds. It encouraged settlements based purely on fear of losing--not the merits of litigation--and didn't discourage filing litigation.
Wow, what a great plan.
The problem with aiming for the deepest pockets is exactly this situation. Now McDs is being sued for the "crime" of owning (wel probably leasing, McD's isn't really into owning) property near where an altercation started. They have the deepest pockets so they're being sued, which is going to cost them a load of direct money and probably a PR hit because the lawyers are gunning for the cash instead of the justice. It's a sick pathetic system that needs to be changed badly.
These are your words, from post number 26:
Are you serious? You have no idea. Even in non-complex litigation, it's not unusual for a big company to run up $5 million in legal bills.
This all seems to be going nowhere, we disagree.
End.
Ok, so this seems to support my claim that it will discourage litigation.
I do not know what the percentage is in the U.S., but if it is is lower than that would be a benefit.
Why?
Great Britain has had a loser pays system for centuries, No one there seems to be crying out for a change.
Yeah, well, they have socialized medicine, too. Should we adopt that?
Even in non-complex litigation, it's not unusual for a big company to run up $5 million in legal bills.
You don't have to come up with $5 million to defend yourself.
Are you a Fortune 500 company? When you seek a lawyer's advice, do you generally seek out an attorney that charges $500 or more an hour? Exxon does. Shell does. Wal-Mart does.
I agree this is going nowhere. Fortunately, the United States will not wholesale adopt a loser pays system. The idea is absolutely going nowhere.
Killed 21 and injured 19.
Except they don't seem to work. One of the problems is many smart lawyers know the better place to fight these is in the press not the courts. If you manage to get enough coverage of the suit, and make sure that coverage makes the company you're suing look bad they'll settle out of court to avoid the PR hit.
And while McDs is filing those motions, and waiting for the judge to rule, and probably the other lawyer will be trying to delay judgement on those motions with various other motions, this guy is going to be giving weekly or even daily press conferences trying to make the concept of this suit as expensive to McDs as possible. Companies like McDs are more afraid of bad publicity than the courts, because bad publicity is often much more expensive.
"Deep Pockets" Ping. Right back at 'cha. ;)
How is it just to stick it to someone for five million dollars' damage that they did not cause? Do yourself a favor, don't come back with something like, 'they can afford it.'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.