Tort reform candidate case: suing cause some guy landed on her vehicle...

[Patrickt]

The merit of the suit will be determined by a judge, and if it's without merit the opposing party will recoup their fees & expenses.

I see no major problem with our system, and believe any inefficiencies are far less harmful than otherwise limiting a citizen's access to the courts for relief.

I believe the courts are the final resort for the aggrieved to receive relief, and as such I'd not remove what is already in place.

"The merit of the suit will be determined by a judge, and if it's without merit the opposing party will recoup their fees & expenses."

Now that's funny. In the first place, the plaintiff has no money and the attorney doesn't have to pay bupkus. In the second place it is possible but extremely rare that a judge would order the plaintiff to pay the defendants expenses when the plaintiff fails to prevail. My father ran a small motel and spent a fortune fighting bogus lawsuits. He never lost and never once had the judge order for the plaintiff to pay my father's expenses. It's a racket.

It's sad you choose to see no problems. It's a scam, a fraud, a racket. It's a way for people like Sen. John Edwards to make $29 million with fraudulent lawsuits and you refuse to see any problems.

Are you a trial attorney or a Democrat, an accomplice for trial attorneys?

 

[Lutherf]

From the last paragraph of the CBS article -

Jamie Crockett has suffered from a loss of the affections he once had with his wife as well as the income she no longer is able to bring home, the suit states.

These pukes are throwing the whole kitchen sink into the ring. I can see the woman being freaked out but this suit is just stupid.

 

[Patrickt]

Because it's their site. They are liable for the goings on at their site.



Say....I own a burger king, on the corner of a crowded shoping center. Say....the manager of my burger king leaves the burners on on the stove, causing a fire. The fire not only consumes my burger king, but also the other buildings in the area.


Well, now, you could argue that no amount of OSHA standards or laws can possibly ensure that every single manager in fast food is worth a damn, right? And, surely, you don't expect that owners of fast food operations should be at their stores 24/7 to ensure mistakes are never made, right?

Never the less, I am liable for repairing/paying for that damage, as it was MY GUY that caused it. Sad, and unfortunate, yes, but sometimes companies hire BAD EMPLOYEES.

Do you agree with this, or should I NOT have to pay for the damages done as a result of the negligence of my guy running my burger king?

Are we talking about negligence in this case? No, it was suicide. It wasn't an accident. And I asked you to tell me how you see the company as being negligent and all you said was it was their site.

Your hypothetical case as absolutely nothing relevant to this one. But, just for fun, let's say you own a Burger King in a mall and your manager leaves the burners on and it starts a fire and there is none of the mandatory automatic fire suppression devices in place the fire spreads. And, the fire department comes and is fighting the fire and a woman driving by is looking at the fire and texting friends and a car cuts her off so she gets mad and rams his car causing him to crash into a city bus and thirteen people fall around.

Should you, as the Burger King owner be sued? How about the mall being sued since it was their site? Silly, isn't it?

The man committed suicide. No accident. No negligence. What we have is a shyster who sees a shot at an easy, and substantial, settlement.

 

[Patrickt]

No, there isn't. Which is why..insurance.

But, I get it. When a post office employee goes postal and guns down co-workers the USPS should be on the hook. When a nutty major guns down people on a military base the lawyers should have a field day suing the U.S. Army. If a nurse is killing elderly patients then the hospital should be the ones sued.

I was rear-ended on the interestate when I slowed for a traffic jam. My almost new car was totaled but I wasn't hurt. A little stiff for a day or say. A week later I got a letter from an attorney. My first thought was that the guy who rammed me was suing. No, the lawyer was soliciting my business. The clue? In large red print it said near the top of the letter, "You might never have to work again."

That's what we're dealing with. That's why we need tort reform. That's why we need to quit having lawyers for one side and lawyers for the other side conspiring with the lawyer running the show.

 

[KevinKohler]

Are we talking about negligence in this case? No, it was suicide. It wasn't an accident. And I asked you to tell me how you see the company as being negligent and all you said was it was their site.

Your hypothetical case as absolutely nothing relevant to this one. But, just for fun, let's say you own a Burger King in a mall and your manager leaves the burners on and it starts a fire and there is none of the mandatory automatic fire suppression devices in place the fire spreads. And, the fire department comes and is fighting the fire and a woman driving by is looking at the fire and texting friends and a car cuts her off so she gets mad and rams his car causing him to crash into a city bus and thirteen people fall around.

Should you, as the Burger King owner be sued? How about the mall being sued since it was their site? Silly, isn't it?

The man committed suicide. No accident. No negligence. What we have is a shyster who sees a shot at an easy, and substantial, settlement.

You're changing the hypothetical, and I have to assume that the purpose for doing such, is because you are beginning to realize the point I'm make.


Assume that I DID have a fire supression system installed, and took every conceivable measure I could...(other than hiring a manager who wouldn't have forgotten to turn off the grill), and despite those measures, the fire still spread, and still caused damage or harm.


Am I, as the owner, liable for that?

 

[KevinKohler]

6071503]But, I get it. When a post office employee goes postal and guns down co-workers the USPS should be on the hook

Yes.

When a nutty major guns down people on a military base the lawyers should have a field day suing the U.S. Army.

They are responsible, so, yes.

If a nurse is killing elderly patients then the hospital should be the ones sued.

Yes.
I was rear-ended on the interestate when I slowed for a traffic jam. My almost new car was totaled but I wasn't hurt. A little stiff for a day or say. A week later I got a letter from an attorney. My first thought was that the guy who rammed me was suing. No, the lawyer was soliciting my business. The clue? In large red print it said near the top of the letter, "You might never have to work again."

That's what we're dealing with. That's why we need tort reform. That's why we need to quit having lawyers for one side and lawyers for the other side conspiring with the lawyer running the show.[/QUOTE]

This I can't disagree with at all, litigation is making it harder and more costly and risky to operate a business. I agree. Everyone is looking for that puddle to slip in and get paid.

But we also can't throw the kids out with the bath water, can we? We can't go 180 and say that a business should NOT be liable for the goings on on their work site.


Yes, it's tragic that the employee committed suicide. No, the company had no way to prevent it from happening. Just like YOU had no way to prevent your traffic accident from happening. Never the less, YOUR insurance covered some of the costs incurred.

This company should even be getting sued...their insurance should just cover, like any other industrial accident.

I mean, change the details slightly. Say, the guy DIDN'T commit suicide. Say, the guy just had an accident. Accidents happen, right? I mean, there's no way at all to completely be accident proof. And fell, and hit that car. Should the companies insurance cover it then?

 

[KevinKohler]

From the last paragraph of the CBS article -


These pukes are throwing the whole kitchen sink into the ring. I can see the woman being freaked out but this suit is just stupid.

All she should get is what it costs to fix her car, and a couple of counceling sessions. That's it. Nothing more. We're talking....20 grand, tops.

That's ALL the judge should allow.

 

[Patrickt]

"The losing side does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees, contrary to popularly held belief. In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose. This allows people to bring cases and lawsuits without the fear of incurring excessive costs if they lose the case. In contrast, in England and other countries, the losing side is often required to pay the other side's attorney's fees after losing a trial."
Attorney Fees: Does the Losing Side Have to Pay? | Nolo.com

"One of the first questions a client will ask his lawyer when he is sued or when he must file suit to protect his rights is this: "Can I make that SOB pay my legal fees?" It is a reasonable question. Litigation can be expensive, and it is fair to ask, at least rhetorically, why one should have to pay out of one’s own pocket just for the vindication of her legal rights. Yet in the end, until lawyers can afford to work for free, someone will have to pay the freight.

The so-called "American Rule," which is also the Pennsylvania rule, is that in the absence of a statutory or contractual provision to the contrary, each party to a lawsuit pays his own legal fees. This is not much of a problem for a business forced to defend a claim covered by liability insurance. Typically, the business pays legal fees up to the amount of its deductible, and the insurer pays the rest. In situations where there is no insurance coverage, the costs can be considerable."
Who Will Pay My Legal Fees? | Wolf, Baldwin & Associates, P.C. | Pottstown Pennsylvania

 

[Patrickt]

You're changing the hypothetical, and I have to assume that the purpose for doing such, is because you are beginning to realize the point I'm make.


Assume that I DID have a fire supression system installed, and took every conceivable measure I could...(other than hiring a manager who wouldn't have forgotten to turn off the grill), and despite those measures, the fire still spread, and still caused damage or harm.


Am I, as the owner, liable for that?

You have no point, Kevin. The man committed suicide. He was not acting within the scope of his employment.

The case is frivolous. I changed your pitiful hypothetical because it was totally irrelevant so I thought I'd just have fun.

 

[KevinKohler]

You have no point, Kevin. The man committed suicide. He was not acting within the scope of his employment.

The case is frivolous. I changed your pitiful hypothetical because it was totally irrelevant so I thought I'd just have fun.

No it's not. As a direct result of the companies presence in the area, a woman's car was hit by a falling body. Liability. Google it.

 

[Patrickt]

No it's not. As a direct result of the companies presence in the area, a woman's car was hit by a falling body. Liability. Google it.

Google what? Falling body? Or, perhaps, you may never have to work again? And, the woman's car was hit by the falling body as a direct result of her being in the area. If that relevant. No. Neither is the fact that the company was in the area. Your position would be that if a worker on lunch break raped a woman, the company would be liable. If two workers had an argument and one assaulted the other, the company would be liable. If one of the workers had a heart attack, the company would be liable.

The man's actions were not a part of or within the scope of his employment. They were not the result of any negligence or error on the part of the company. What we have is a sleazy attorney who is praying he'll never have to go to court and will get a settlement from the company that will make his time worthwhile.

We need tort reform. We could at least dump the "American Rule" and go with the "English Rule" and have the losing side pay the other sides expenses. And, if the attorney is in for 33 1/3% of the gravy he should be on the hook for at least 33 1/3% of the expenses. I'd argue for more liability for the attorney since he should have known it was bogus.

I wonder what would happen if after the scientists found out the claims Sen. Edwards made to win $29 million were bogus he had had to return the money. That would have been fair.

 

[Patrickt]

An excellent article and an American family.
"All these frivolous lawsuits do is make an overly litigious society more so.

When everyone runs to court at the drop of a hat (or the drop of a rock on someone’s toe), it means that everything is more expensive, that no one can go about their jobs or their lives without fear of lawsuits and that everything costs more. It also means that our first inclination becomes to blame others for our misfortunes and never to forgive, let alone give anyone else the benefit of the doubt. And rather than use our legal system to achieve justice, we use it to settle scores."
The parents who didn’t sue Disney taught America a powerful lesson | New York Post

I realize the lawsuit industry makes billions for the lawyers and I realize that a lot of people making the laws are lawyers and are being paid by trial lawyers to keep the industry rolling but it's time Americans stop the nonsense.