• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass Torts

LaughAtTheWorld

Custom User Title
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
9,642
Reaction score
3,591
Location
Seoul/Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Although I consider myself no legal expert, I do feel that some of you don't know much about mass torts. I'm a fan of John Grisham and read many of his legal thrillers. One of them were called The King of Torts which I read.

Mass torts is a very expensive practice, but very lucrative part of the law. It's a very unethical practice in my opinion. The mass tort lawyers are few in number, but are very rich. Mass torts is in which the mass tort lawyer(s) first learns about a bad product. Asbestos, drugs, lead paint, etc..... Then, the mass tort lawyer(s) advertise like crazy to the general public about that product and tells them that if they consumed or bought the product, they should contact him/her (usually they have a hotline, website, etc...). They try to gather up as many as cases as possible and sometimes get several thousand. Then, they try to settle their cases to the companies which are frightened by them (companies never try to have a jury because of unpredictable verdicts). The individual only gets a few thousand, even if they are going to die because of that product. Normally, that case would be worth millions, but because of the sleazy mass tort lawyer(s), they only get a few thousand while the lawyer(s) get a few million because they take about 50% of the settlement. It's very lucrative, but very unethical.

What do you think?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Although I consider myself no legal expert, I do feel that some of you don't know much about mass torts. I'm a fan of John Grisham and read many of his legal thrillers. One of them were called The King of Torts which I read.

Mass torts is a very expensive practice, but very lucrative part of the law. It's a very unethical practice in my opinion. The mass tort lawyers are few in number, but are very rich. Mass torts is in which the mass tort lawyer(s) first learns about a bad product. Asbestos, drugs, lead paint, etc..... Then, the mass tort lawyer(s) advertise like crazy to the general public about that product and tells them that if they consumed or bought the product, they should contact him/her (usually they have a hotline, website, etc...). They try to gather up as many as cases as possible and sometimes get several thousand. Then, they try to settle their cases to the companies which are frightened by them (companies never try to have a jury because of unpredictable verdicts). The individual only gets a few thousand, even if they are going to die because of that product. Normally, that case would be worth millions, but because of the sleazy mass tort lawyer(s), they only get a few thousand while the lawyer(s) get a few million because they take about 50% of the settlement. It's very lucrative, but very unethical.

What do you think?
This is often true, but I'd suggest reading A Civil Action to get another point of view.
 
Last edited:

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sometimes mass torts are the only way it is affordable for people to get their due. It is very expensive to take a court case to conclusion, and if your damages are only in the thousands, it is very difficult to come out ahead. Mass torts make it possible without requiring every individual spend a fortune in legal fees. Like most legal techniques, they can be used for good or evil depending on the circumstances and the people using them.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think most Americans are well aware of mass tort litigation. We see advertisements for them on television all the time. Avandia, Vioxx, Chantix, Celebrex and Paxil are just a few of the ongoing mass tort litigations. These drugs were all approved by the FDA. That appears to make no difference. If we wonder why drugs are so expensive, we only have to look at these lawsuits to see why. Causation is very difficult to prove. Did Uncle Bill (or a thousand Uncle Bills) have a heart attack because he was taking Chantix? Or would he have had one anyway? Did the medicine list heart issues as a possible side effect? Doesn't seem to make any difference.

Here's just one example:
More than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed in recent years against four drugs taken by millions of patients: hormone-replacement drug Prempro, birth-control patch Ortho Evra, anti-psychotic Seroquel and anti-seizure drug Neurontin. The plaintiffs claim drugmakers failed to disclose the drugs' risks or failed to properly test them, or both. The claims are similar to those against Merck's painkiller Vioxx, which faces 14,000 lawsuits. Unlike Vioxx, these drugs are still being sold, and the Food and Drug Administration considers their benefits worth their risks.
The FDA should be held to a higher standard. If a drug has been approved by the FDA and, as the above bolded quote indicates, the FDA considers their benefits worth the risk, that to me should be a perfect defense.

This is a huge profit center. It is one of the reasons our prescription drugs are so expensive. The whole process should be reformed. But it won't be because the ABA is a powerful lobbier.
 
Top Bottom