If You Sue Another Person You Should Never Be Allowed To Collect-What If?

[rhinefire]

Since America is an endless cesspool of litigation I wonder......what if in a personal trivial lawsuit only a charity chosen by the person suing would receive any money? By this I mean if you trip and fall in my yard and you sue for a million and win, none of the money is allowed to go to you rather, it must go to a local charity. Since these trivial lawsuits are nothing but a burden on our system why not make it illegal to collect on a decision in your favor? Would this not drastically cut back on these silly wastes of time and effort?

 

[Cardinal]

Since America is an endless cesspool of litigation I wonder......what if in a personal trivial lawsuit only a charity chosen by the person suing would receive any money? By this I mean if you trip and fall in my yard and you sue for a million and win, none of the money is allowed to go to you rather, it must go to a local charity. Since these trivial lawsuits are nothing but a burden on our system why not make it illegal to collect on a decision in your favor? Would this not drastically cut back on these silly wastes of time and effort?

The problem as I see it is that lawsuits are deemed "frivolous" far more frequently and irresponsibly than people making comparisons to Hitler on the internet. Sure, some comparisons are actually valid but they're used so often they've kind of lost all meaning.

Also another problem is if a plaintiff brings a lawsuit you consider "frivolous" to court and wins, the judgment is essentially that the plaintiff's case wasn't frivolous at all and therefore deserves the payment.

 

[radcen]

Since America is an endless cesspool of litigation I wonder......what if in a personal trivial lawsuit only a charity chosen by the person suing would receive any money? By this I mean if you trip and fall in my yard and you sue for a million and win, none of the money is allowed to go to you rather, it must go to a local charity. Since these trivial lawsuits are nothing but a burden on our system why not make it illegal to collect on a decision in your favor? Would this not drastically cut back on these silly wastes of time and effort?

Real damages should always go to the injured party. The idea is to make a person "whole" again, or as whole as possible. I would include covering attorney and other legitimate litigation costs in this, as the injured party shouldn't still come up short.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, should not go to the injured party. They're meant to be punishment for the negligent party, not arbitrarily reward the injured. I have never fully worked out where punitive damages should go, but charity is the best option I have been able to come up with. If punitive damages went to a charity, neither party should be able to claim them as a tax deduction.

ETA: It would also have to be a charity that neither party has a potential vested interest in, as in a relative working for it and somehow funneling the money back.

 

[Chomsky]

Since America is an endless cesspool of litigation I wonder......what if in a personal trivial lawsuit only a charity chosen by the person suing would receive any money? By this I mean if you trip and fall in my yard and you sue for a million and win, none of the money is allowed to go to you rather, it must go to a local charity. Since these trivial lawsuits are nothing but a burden on our system why not make it illegal to collect on a decision in your favor? Would this not drastically cut back on these silly wastes of time and effort?

I'm fine with this in my lawsuits, as long as the charity is me!

 

[radcen]

As Emily Litella would say, Never mind.

 

[MaggieD]

Since America is an endless cesspool of litigation I wonder......what if in a personal trivial lawsuit only a charity chosen by the person suing would receive any money? By this I mean if you trip and fall in my yard and you sue for a million and win, none of the money is allowed to go to you rather, it must go to a local charity. Since these trivial lawsuits are nothing but a burden on our system why not make it illegal to collect on a decision in your favor? Would this not drastically cut back on these silly wastes of time and effort?

Great! Now who decides what's trivial?

 

[radcen]

Great! Now who decides what's trivial?

I do. Duh!

 

[mike2810]

Welcome to the United States of Litigation.

- In the OP example there is not enough info. If the person who tripped resulting in medical expenses and won the case, then compensation of medical, lost wages, etc may be in order. Many times insurance is willing to settle rather than go to court. its cheaper.

- On the flip side, imo, if someone sues, looses the case. Then that person should have to pay damages for filing a stupid law suit. The penalty should be such that one may think twice before just suing. That is make darn sure you have a case and its legit.

 

[radcen]

Welcome to the United States of Litigation.

- In the OP example there is not enough info. If the person who tripped resulting in medical expenses and won the case, then compensation of medical, lost wages, etc may be in order. Many times insurance is willing to settle rather than go to court. its cheaper.

- On the flip side, imo, if someone sues, looses the case. Then that person should have to pay damages for filing a stupid law suit. The penalty should be such that one may think twice before just suing. That is make darn sure you have a case and its legit.

The idea has merit, and we can all cite examples of stupid cases, but I'm not ready to go there. It would also discourage legitimate suits, especially against large corporations that have the wherewithal to fight and rack up large legal fees just because they can. Plus, not all losing cases are stupid or frivolous, they just lose because somebody has to.

I would be more open to allowing the judge, or a judge, to determine if a case was frivolous then proceed from there.

 

[PirateMk1]

Since America is an endless cesspool of litigation I wonder......what if in a personal trivial lawsuit only a charity chosen by the person suing would receive any money? By this I mean if you trip and fall in my yard and you sue for a million and win, none of the money is allowed to go to you rather, it must go to a local charity. Since these trivial lawsuits are nothing but a burden on our system why not make it illegal to collect on a decision in your favor? Would this not drastically cut back on these silly wastes of time and effort?

I think the only real reform we need is to use the same standard as a criminal jury which is unanimous and beyond reasonable doubt. This is the reason most cases are settled and it is cheaper not to fight and litigants tend to sue over the slightest thing as the field is tilted that way. By just saying that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and have a unanimous jury it levels the playing field toward the defense and it becomes more difficult to successfully litigate without having a legitimate case. Preponderance of evidence and a bare majority of the jury are currently the standard in most jurisdictions. Hence the reason for the ease of winning a lawsuit.

 

[radcen]

I think the only real reform we need is to use the same standard as a criminal jury which is unanimous and beyond reasonable doubt. This is the reason most cases are settled and it is cheaper not to fight and litigants tend to sue over the slightest thing as the field is tilted that way. By just saying that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and have a unanimous jury it levels the playing field toward the defense and it becomes more difficult to successfully litigate without having a legitimate case. Preponderance of evidence and a bare majority of the jury are currently the standard in most jurisdictions. Hence the reason for the ease of winning a lawsuit.

I once read that juries are also biased toward plaintiffs, especially when the defendant is a large corporation and/or has insurance. IOW, deep pockets won't feel the pain, so help the little guy like me.

 

[PirateMk1]

I once read that juries are also biased toward plaintiffs, especially when the defendant is a large corporation and/or has insurance. IOW, deep pockets won't feel the pain, so help the little guy like me.

Yes this true partially, however most of those rewards were on juries that only had to get a bare majority, and further the standard was preponderance of evidence which is a lower beyond reasonable doubt by a large margin. Most juries findings in litigation are not unanimous. Simply by raising the standard you make it more likely that the lawsuit is legitimate.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

OP's idea gave me cancer.

 

[mike2810]

The idea has merit, and we can all cite examples of stupid cases, but I'm not ready to go there. It would also discourage legitimate suits, especially against large corporations that have the wherewithal to fight and rack up large legal fees just because they can. Plus, not all losing cases are stupid or frivolous, they just lose because somebody has to.

I would be more open to allowing the judge, or a judge, to determine if a case was frivolous then proceed from there.

I am ready to go there. There are so many cases of someone suing someone else just because the plaintiff was stupid.

Ok, let the judge decide. If the case has no merit, at a minimum the one filing the suit pays court costs.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Great! Now who decides what's trivial?

That's determined though a civil lawsuit.

Good afternoon Maggie - hope you're doing well.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I don't know what happens in the US, but here in Canada judges have a fairly broad authority to pre-determine whether or not a lawsuit seems trivial. In addition, courts often will assign costs if plaintiffs continue to pursue obviously trivial or vindictive suits that waste the court's time.

The best way to slow down or stop frivolous suits is to make losing them painful to those who file them.

 

[radcen]

I don't know what happens in the US, but here in Canada judges have a fairly broad authority to pre-determine whether or not a lawsuit seems trivial. In addition, courts often will assign costs if plaintiffs continue to pursue obviously trivial or vindictive suits that waste the court's time.

The best way to slow down or stop frivolous suits is to make losing them painful to those who file them.

That can and does happen here, though not very often. It's definitely the exception, not the rule.

 

[gdgyva]

Since America is an endless cesspool of litigation I wonder......what if in a personal trivial lawsuit only a charity chosen by the person suing would receive any money? By this I mean if you trip and fall in my yard and you sue for a million and win, none of the money is allowed to go to you rather, it must go to a local charity. Since these trivial lawsuits are nothing but a burden on our system why not make it illegal to collect on a decision in your favor? Would this not drastically cut back on these silly wastes of time and effort?

who in the hell determines if something is trivial

maybe its trivial to you, but important to other people

i agree that way too many people sue way too often nowadays....but to give proceeds to charity?

no....hell no

the idea of a lawsuit is to TRY and make someone whole again.....most of the time that is impossible.....but a settlement from a court, or from a jury at least gives them something back

 

[faithful_servant]

Real damages should always go to the injured party. The idea is to make a person "whole" again, or as whole as possible. I would include covering attorney and other legitimate litigation costs in this, as the injured party shouldn't still come up short.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, should not go to the injured party. They're meant to be punishment for the negligent party, not arbitrarily reward the injured. I have never fully worked out where punitive damages should go, but charity is the best option I have been able to come up with. If punitive damages went to a charity, neither party should be able to claim them as a tax deduction.

ETA: It would also have to be a charity that neither party has a potential vested interest in, as in a relative working for it and somehow funneling the money back.

My wife is having surgery on the 17th. If the surgeon screws up and she dies, how money does it take to make me, my son, grand-daughter, MIL, SIL, BILs, etc. whole?? If all she does is loses her foot, how money does it cost to make her whole?? Prosthetics aren't going give her back the pleasure of a good foot rub, give her full mobility, etc. There is a very definite point to punitive damages going to the injured party. Having said that, there should be VERY clearly defined standards for punitive damages. Our society has gotten WAY out of control in this area. I know a couple who sued and won $10,000,000 because a surgeon made a small mistake during a routine operation and she lost sensation in the outside edge of one foot. There definitely should have been punitive damages, but $10,000,000 is grossly wrong. She doesn't limp, still runs 10Ks and unless she actually thinks about it, never even notices it (her words, not mine), but she was still awarded $10,000,000. Frikkin' crazy....

 

[radcen]

My wife is having surgery on the 17th. If the surgeon screws up and she dies, how money does it take to make me, my son, grand-daughter, MIL, SIL, BILs, etc. whole?? If all she does is loses her foot, how money does it cost to make her whole?? Prosthetics aren't going give her back the pleasure of a good foot rub, give her full mobility, etc. There is a very definite point to punitive damages going to the injured party. Having said that, there should be VERY clearly defined standards for punitive damages. Our society has gotten WAY out of control in this area. I know a couple who sued and won $10,000,000 because a surgeon made a small mistake during a routine operation and she lost sensation in the outside edge of one foot. There definitely should have been punitive damages, but $10,000,000 is grossly wrong. She doesn't limp, still runs 10Ks and unless she actually thinks about it, never even notices it (her words, not mine), but she was still awarded $10,000,000. Frikkin' crazy....

1) You're almost making the case for not having punitive damages at all. If no amount of money is enough, then what's the point? Maybe we should move toward criminal negligence and incarceration instead. Personally, I'd rather not do that, unless intent were involved.

2) I did include "...as whole as possible". Of course there will be scenarios where being made fully whole is not possible, and I said that.

3) If the surgeon doesn't screw up, but it doesn't go as well as hoped anyway, will you still sue? Many people would. It's become all about the payout, not actual wrongdoing.

We agree that too many people abuse the present system, and I don't think my solution is perfect or ideal, but I do think it'd be an overall improvement than what we have now.

 

[Paschendale]

It's amazing how warped some people's perception of our legal system is. Every single idea in this thread is awful, and most are rooted in fundamental misunderstandings of how our laws work and why they work that way. The vast majority of civil litigation is contract disputes. And most personal injury awards are legislated by the state to avoid excessive punitive penalties. We have a preponderance of the evidence standard because a civil suit is supposed to be a fair dispute resolution between two parties, not one stacked against the plaintiff. But jury trends seldom matter, because almost all suits are settled out of court anyway. Lastly, only a tiny fraction of lawsuits are found to be frivolous. Pushing a frivolous lawsuit is one of the few things that can really get an attorney in trouble and we take great care to ensure that we're not doing that.

Is this just more of that "tort reform" line that's really just about making it harder for poor people to sue negligent doctors? The only real result of those ideas is just that more poor people end up disabled because they can't afford treatment.

Our legal system isn't at all like what you see on TV and the occasional anecdote about a really big award doesn't mean jack. Most of them are reduced on appeal anyway, but nobody remembers to point that out. The descriptions of our legal system in this thread are wrong. The famous case about the lady who was burned by McDonalds' coffee was right and McDonalds was actually negligent and went against industry safety practices in serving their coffee much hotter than is normal. And her massive award was later reduced. Her actual suit was for the cost of her injuries, which were very serious burns.

If these changes were implemented, the pursuit of actual justice would become a nightmare, and few plaintiffs would ever be made whole. If anything, our system needs higher awards and penalties. The calculation for damages in a wrongful death case are paltry, and caps on punitive damages are extremely low. Why are they too low? Because they aren't high enough to actually deter the wrongdoing entity (usually a large and powerful corporation) from doing the thing they aren't supposed to do. When you can calculate the damages that a product or action will cause and find it to be cheaper than implementing safety measures, then something is very wrong.

Please, learn the realities of our legal system instead of these falsehoods.