Minneapolis Bridge ‘Victims’ On Board for the Sickest Lottery Imaginable

As soon as we become a socialist country, then your view of how the legal system should operate can succeed.

It is quite obvious that you are ignorant of the legal system and how it really works.

In regards to the Legal principles (established BY lawyers FOR lawyers),

You do realize that the defense has lawyers too, right?

the fact remains that an uninsured motorist being the negligent party, for example, leaves no means of recovery (unless specific insurance has been purchased for such an event).

what does an uninsured motorist (logically) have to do with a negligent act by the state government? The potential for getting injured by an uninsured motorist is a foreseeable occurance, hence the ability to provide yourself with insurance against it. I don't recall ever having an insurance agent ask me if i wanted additional coverage against a bridge falling on me.

Providing the Respondeat Superior principle allows Lawyers to go after deep pockets, period.

Wrong. It means that employers are responsible for acts of their employees in the course of their employment. Should a trucking company be not liable for sending a driver out on the highway when they know he drinks a 6-pack before noon, just as a warmup? That is what you are saying.

I could go on, but it is pointless. You and the others have based your beliefs on ignorant assertions that benefit the insurance industry, and no matter how many facts and logical explanations are put before you, you won't see it because you don't want to.

You and others like you talk about the "coffee in the lap" case, but are ignorant of the real facts of the case, and what really happened. What you bought hook, line, and sinker is the message the insurance industry wanted you to believe.

Absolutely absurd.

You miss one key difference: who pays.

All comments objecting to a payout for the victims refer to who is paying. You and your buddy conveniently use the term “the government” when talking about negligence, but conveniently overlook the fact that “the government” gets all of its funds from the taxpayers.

The question remains, why should the taxpayer fork over huge settlements when it was individual employees of “the government” who were negligent? In your world, John Doe walks down the sidewalk that “the government” just repaired. He trips over an uneven surface and falls and hurts his hand. He should then be able to knock on his neighbor’s door and demand payment because of what the construction crew did wrong...simply because it was a government contract. This makes no sense, and, as the author points out, is another form of socialism (redistribution of funds). This is why so many Leftists OPPOSE tort reform. They see it mainly as taking money from corporations and insurance companies and redistributing it to [whomever — doesn’t matter whom, just take it from those who have it.]

You are equivocating 1. insurance companies trying to avoid payouts on behalf of their customers who are sued, and 2. legitimate lawsuits against negligent individuals and companies to compensate those they have harmed, to 3. class-action lawsuits against unnamed groups of civil servants, to be paid by the taxpayer.

There is no legitimate analogy between 1 and 2 and 3.

After the World Trade Center, hurricane Katrina, this bridge, could someone give me an example of a tragedy in which the ‘victims’ would not have a comparable claim on the taxpayers. Personally, I don’t object if the taxpayers are asked to pay for medical treatment after those individuals responsible and charity have not been able to cover the bills, but too often what the ‘victims; and lawyers want is a windfall courtesy of the same taxpayers. Government should the payer of last resort and direct incurred expenses only, no pain and suffering, no mental anguish, etc, that is just part of of life.

No, that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in.

The responsible parties you mention need not avoid being negligent because they know they can’t be sued.

This is wrong on two accounts: it charges the innocent (taxpayers) with a penalty and it frees the negligent from responsibility.

Lawsuits can be good. They keep people in check (especially MDs), but the system is far beyond being merely abused. We need tort reform. Civil servants and companies that contract through the government need to be held accountable...they need to pay the victims of their negligence.

Why should “the government” be immune from the laws the rest of us abide by? Why should the people, who have nothing to do with governmental negligence or even malfeasance, have to pay their penalty?

We need tort reform, and holding civil servants and contractors accountable is a huge part of it. The waste and palm-greasing and being criminally and financially responsible for such infractions would make it worthwhile in and by itself.

I'm with you on the WTC and Katrina. I have long been an opponent of federal bailouts of natural disasters. Why should I have to pay to rebuild my house if it is the only one that burns, but if the whole town burns or is flattened by a tornado, the government will step in and it doesn't matter if i had insurance?

I disagree with you on pain and suffering though. I personally find it distasteful to seek it as a matter of course, but there are occasions where it is real, permanent, and prevents the victim from having a normal life. If you caused that person to be in that position, shouldn't you have to compensate them for it? what if that pain prevents them from being able to earn a living?

Note also that in cases like the WTC lawyers probably didn't get anything, other than hourly fees for those that sought advice on whether to accept the govt offer.

I completely understand the desire to prevent undeserving parties from receiving a windfall. What most people don't understand is that actual cases of this happening are few and far between. But they make the papers, and they fuel the outrage. But what never gets covered is what happens after the jury makes an award. I bet not one of the posters here who point to the McDonalds/coffee case know what the end result of that case was. But that doesn't stop them from using it as an example of a civil justice system run amok and in need of tort reform.

Here in TN, a far more likely outcome in a trial where there is clear negligence is for their to be one hard core evangelical on the jury who insists that it was God's will, that if he wanted to prevent the accident he could have, and therefore he doesn't think the plaintiff is entitled to anything.

When an employee or a contractor acts on his own, he can be held individually responsible. When he is acting under "color of authority" then he is acting to further the policy of that agency, so it is the agency that should be held responsible. You can't just tell someone to go fix the sidewalk and absolve yourself of the responsibility to ensure that it was actually done.

This is wrong on two accounts: it charges the innocent (taxpayers) with a penalty and it frees the negligent from responsibility.

Are the taxpayers innocent? it is the government that they elected to represent them that failed to maintain that bridge. They allowed those representatives to spend money on projects that got them re-elected rather than maintain the State's infrastructure. I'm reminded of P.J. O'Rourke's comment that our government is a Parliament of Whores, and the Whores are us.

In cases like the WTC or Katrina, I agree that taxpayer money should not go to reward those affected. But this bridge case clearly appears to be due to negligence. The government the people selected failed to exercise its duty of care, and those responsible for selecting those to make those decisions will ultimately bear the cost (citizens of MN, not the U.S.).

"The government the people selected failed to exercise its duty of care, and those responsible for selecting those to make those decisions will ultimately bear the cost (citizens of MN, not the U.S.).
Sorry; that's not the ultimate result. When the people of MN are fleeced to pay the cost of the "government's negligence", the funds expended will be replaced from Federal Funds gained through earmarks from their Congressmen for other projects, so that the budget can be balanced. The American taxpayers are already bearing the cost of the bridge reconstruction (Federal funding), which is the REAL cost of the bridge failure (not the "punitive damages" yet). When the PUNITIVE award in the millions of dollars comes through, then Federal funding (aka, American taxpayer dollars) will be appropriated through some earmark to replace those State funds lost in the litigation.

Count on it. No State will lose General Funds and not replace them from other sources, and, in this case, you can bet it will be the Federal funds they seek (same ol' deep pockets at work).

What do you base your statement regarding punitive damages on? Do you know what the standard is in MN to allow recovery for punitive damages? I don't know either, but I doubt it is as liberal as states where you hear about the outrageous awards being granted. Of course, as I said most likely such an award would never be allowed to stand, but no one bothers to see how the story ends, they see an article that confirms their (uninformed) beliefs, so that is all they need.

I live in TN, here is what the state of tort is here, in a nutshell:

punitive damages: only available when the harm results from gross negligence or an intentional act. Why? actual damages aren't to punish the tortfeasor, but to compensate the victim. Negligence doesn't deserve punishment, but gross negligence or intentionally causing harm does. What happens if the jury is outraged, and awards $1 million in actual damages, and $20 million in punitive? Judge automatically throws out the whole punitive award. Anything over 10X the actual damages and the jury is assumed to be acting under passion rather than reason.

actual damages: what happens when you have a negligently caused injury, a plaintiff that the jury likes and a very talented plaintiff's lawyer who gets his client an award far in excess of what others normally receive for the same injury? The defense files a remittitur motion, meaning the trial judge can reduce the award to the upper limit of what is normally given for a similar injury. Defense still can appeal, and will, if it is a big award (even if deserved) in the hopes of getting the plaintiff to settle for less or to delay paying.

In the "real world", deserving plaintiffs get screwed a lot more than innocent defendants.

The ones who ALWAYS get screwed in the big tort cases are NEVER the lawyers, I assure you....

Really?? Who do you think advances all the costs necessary to bring a "big" case? The defense is the side responsible for much of the runaway costs in litigation. The theory being that if they can make it expensive enough, the other side will just go away because there won't be anything left after paying experts, court reporters, etc, so even if you win you get nothing. Defense lawyers get paid by the hour. Their incentive is to delay, file pointless motions and otherwise run up their bill, while some kid in a wheelchair, put their by the defendant who while driving drunk crossed the center line, waits for the insurance company to hopefully be found liable.

So if the insurer is able to avoid its liability, the plaintiff's lawyer has to eat the costs. Now if they were bringing a frivolous case, I'm glad to see them lose the money. that is why most won't take flimsy cases; the cost of losing is too high.

I know, I know.... such logic goes against your FEELINGS, so of course it must be dismissed.

“Are the taxpayers innocent?”

Yes. They most certainly are in cases of negligence.

PJ and you can speak for yourselves, if you knowingly elect whores.

The rest of us try to elect the most just, in the Platonic sense, and those that will serve us well.

In our democratic republic, we elect representatives as best we can. They represent us. That makes them responsible for their actions. They should be aware of that when they seek to represent us.

But those who work on contracts such as we have been discussing are not elected. They are hired by bureaucrats who are appointed. The chain of appointment is part of what blurs people of their responsibility. I don’t want them hiding in those blurred areas.

I don't disagree with that statement. However in this case I believe the problem was not a contractor who was negligent in conducting repairs, but a failure to conduct inspections and discover that there was a problem.

Also, you can't assign away your responsibility to exercise due care. for example, say there is a law that states that when doing road repairs, orange barrels must be put out to divert traffic. It is the general contractor's responsibility to see that this rule is followed. He might hire a subcontractor to do that job, but the general contractor ultimately bears the responsibility to see that the barrels are placed. Now if a person is injured as a result of those barrels not being in place, the plaintiff can recover from either the contractor or general contractor (respondeat superior doctrine). BUT, the general contractor can recover what P got from him from the subcontractor, if he has any assets.

You don't know of which you speak. You may be a lawyer-in-training, but the reality is that the goal of big-buck tort litigation plaintiff's attorneys is to sue for the MEGA-BUCKS, force the defendant with the deep-pockets to make a business decision to pay off the extortionist-plaintiff, as it is more a business judgement than an admission of guilt. This is the COMMON outcome of most cases, where the extrotionist/plaintiff's attorneys know that it is far more economical to settle up-front, avoid the crapshoot of a lotto-minded jury, and thus save your business for another day (while adding the cost as an expense, and passing it on to consumers).

No legal team at a major deep-pockets company is going to go to trial over a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that can be settled out of court for a few hundred thousand dollars.

When you can explain to me how lawyers in the Tobacco Settlement, for example, deserve BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their work that could in no way approach reasonable compensation for the hours or expenses incurred, is NOT extortion and a scam, then we'll talk about how fair the system is, and how the lawyers represent honest work for honest pay.

Until then, dream on, and buy the rhetoric of Liberal law school professors who have never owned a business and been subject to extortion for claims that have no basis in common sense, and are subject to the whims of a "social-statement"-minded jury pool, hand-picked by "jury consultants", etc.

You need to get out more.

Yes, I know that. But that leads me back to my original point. Sue the construction company that built the bridge faultily, hold the appointed/hired inspector accountable (fire him at least, jail time perhaps), but don’t sue the taxpayers who were good enough to hand over money to build the bridge in the first place.

Aside from that, ever have damage done to your car from hitting a pothole? Ever try to obtain compensation? When the government is involved, it is nearly impossible to be compensated for their negligence. If they sub-contract, you do have some recourse, but oftent he governing agency will represent or testify for the sub-contractor. Everything is stacked up against the litigant in these cases.

"I believe you have mistakenly confused me with the other poster who stated that he/she was a law student."

Excuse me; I stand corrected.

As far as my "rant", it's just a summary of my experience with the subject matter. So long as lawyers are permitted to be compensated as interested parties in the outcome (i.e., a percentage of the winnings PLUS fees), the litigation lotto game will not stop, and taxpayers and consumers will continue to be fleeced.

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.