Replies

The Canadian legal system seems to have some advantages over the American one. Anybody can't sue over anything, and the loser pays the cost of the trial.

Loser paying the costs of the trial seems like it would have the potential to cut the number of court case to 10% or less.

Loser paying the costs of the trial seems like it would have the potential to cut the number of court case to 10% or less.

It would also have the effect of relieving big companies of responsibility for their actions. It would also most likely greatly increase the costs for bringing a case to trial, even clear cut cases.

Try to remember that in most cases the plainiff's attorney is working on a contingency basis. Which means if there is no recovery, he is eating not only his own costs but those of experts and other accrued fees. So very few true frivolous cases get filed. In this pants case, he couldnt get a lawyer to represent him.

And what constitutes being frivolous? Take the McDonalds coffee case. The case is the same whether the damages asked for was just medical bills or for actual and punitive damages (which is what the bulk of that award was (punitive)). And I think it is reasonable to ask whether a company's decision to super-heat its coffee, even after previous instances of scalding customers, was reasonable. BTW, on appeal, that award got knocked back into reality. I'm not even sure she recovered anything except her actual damages.

Loser paying the costs of the trial seems like it would have the potential to cut the number of court case to 10% or less.

It would also have the effect of relieving big companies of responsibility for their actions. It would also most likely greatly increase the costs for bringing a case to trial, even clear cut cases.

Try to remember that in most cases the plainiff's attorney is working on a contingency basis. Which means if there is no recovery, he is eating not only his own costs but those of experts and other accrued fees. So very few true frivolous cases get filed. In this pants case, he couldnt get a lawyer to represent him.

And what constitutes being frivolous? Take the McDonalds coffee case. The case is the same whether the damages asked for was just medical bills or for actual and punitive damages (which is what the bulk of that award was (punitive). BTW, on appeal, that award got knocked back into reality.

Loser paying the costs of the trial seems like it would have the potential to cut the number of court case to 10% or less.

There are some moral hazards associated with 'loser pays', since a side that expects to win has no incentive to minimize its own legal expenses.