Replies

Of course. Don't be ridiculous. However, the grounds for such suits should be well-founded, and the loser should pay the prevailing parties costs. Also, I think there should be professional jurors, so they can't be scammed by the likes of John Edwards and others like him. Rules like these would cut out a lot of the frivolous lawsuits.

What evidence, if any, do you have that the vast majority of malpractice suits are not well-founded? Those who lose say they aren't, and say it loudly and often, but what would you expect someone who has tarnished his professional reputation through incompetence to say? The effect (and I think point) of "loser pays" is to protect the well-funded at the expense of the little guy; just because you lose doesn't mean you didn't actually have a valid claim--the system ain't perfect.

Furthermore, are you aware that bringing an action found frivolous is a great way for a lawyer to get his case tossed, for opposing counsel to seek sanctions including fees and costs, and for the offending lawyer to eventually be sued for legal malpractice AND face suspension or disbarment? A great example of Federal (states have similar provisions) Rule 11 in action can be seen here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473060848&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
The system already has ways for dealing with truly frivolous cases, and it deals with them far more rationally than a flat "loser pays" rule.

Finally, at times I've also favored the idea of "professional jurors" in civil cases. But wouldn't they end up being government employees? You really want trial by bureaucrat? Not me. I'll take my chances with Bubba and Luverne. They've got more common sense than most of the people sucking the taxpayers dry.

There is no "arbitrary damages cap" and there will never be one. However, there should be caps on the nonquantifiable "pain and suffering".

If the problem is that pain and suffering are not precisely quantifiable then that is the perfect situation for a jury to weigh the facts and make a judgment call. The only other rational option is to decide as a society that pain and suffering are simply not worthy of compensation. Capping damages you can't quantify because any amount above a given number makes you queasy is the essence of an arbitrary rule.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I hope you'll look into Rule 11 and read some cases. Truly frivolous cases get whacked, and so do the lawyers who bring them.

We'll agree to disagree. But just a few comments.

vast majority of malpractice....

I NEVER said "vast majority" in any of my postings. Neverless, the defense does win a significant majority of such cases that go to trial, in my understanding. Well-founded cases do NOT lose at trial. A losing case at trial (for the plaintiff) means that that the plaintiff's atty had poor judgement and wasted EVERYONE'S resources.

Furthermore, are you aware....

That's a bunch of theoretical falderal. NEVER happens to any SIGINFICANT degree. Lawyers protect each other. Compare malpractice RATES of lawyers to malpractice RATES of physicians (and I don't mean "rates" as in $$ rates). See whose rates are higher. Its not even close. If lawyers rates are lower (and they are), is one therefore justified in concluding that lawyers are smarter, more careful, and more thoughtful in their profession than doctors, OR is there another explanation? (rhetorical question).

Bubba and Laverne *might* be good for criminal cases, but it is easy to find examples of case after case after case after case after case after case after case after case where B & L are emotionally manipulated by the involved lawyers or otherwise fooled or scammed into coming up with the most astonishing, jaw-dropping, forehead-slapping verdicts. See www.overlawyered.com. B & L are selected to serve on jury based their ignorance, stupidity and emotional pliability. Given my opinion of B & L, it logically follows that they should not be assessing the intangibles of pain and suffering.