fatdad wrote:oldandslow wrote:As far as some people having a perverse idea of what one can sue for, too many of those people are lawyers who do not have enough to do so they sue. Innocent defendants have to spend substantial amounts in order to defend themselves. It will be interesting to see how the new Texas statute requiring the loser to pay (in case of a groundless suit) plays out. Perhaps there are not enough "deep pockets" giving advice on SP to get the attention of the plaintiff's bar.
Not to put you on the defensive immediately but, again, this response seems to have some faulty preconceptions about the legal system and it's aim is.
First of all, lawyers represent clients. Lawyers do not dream up lawsuits because they have nothing better to do. Lawyers are officers of the court and are also bound by their own state's rules of ethics or professional conduct. They are also subject to discipline and suspension/disbarment for unethical practices, which would include suing because one does "not have enough to do."
Second, defendants are not "innocent", they are either liable or not liable.
Third, the Texas statute (which is the productive of a conservative legislature seeking to appease their corporate base), while obstensibly meant to deter people with bogus claims, will only deter individuals with valid claims who will be bankrupted when they can't outspend an Exxon or AIG or Bank of America, who will spend a TON of money burying individuals who would bring otherwise valid claims. It will subvert justice, not further it. Such statutes only benefit those insurance companies who have to pay out on claims, not the consumer.
Fourth, the perception that the system is clogged with meritless claims is false. Per capita, there were more lawsuits filed during Colonial times than there are presently. The court systems is severly impacted because they lost so much funding due to budgetary problems, not slews of false claims. Again, that is propaganda, for lack of a better term, put out by industry and the insurance cos. who do not want to get sued, regardless of whether a plaintiff has a legit claim against them. Since they can't win in the courtroom, they're taking their fight to the legislature. Unfortunately, some folks like oldandslow seem to be buying their specious arguments.
BTW, I'm just a probate lawyer, not a consumer or p.i. attorney. I don't make any of my income off of claims described in this thread. However, the continued attack on the legitimacy of the legal system, which is designed to benefit everyone needing justice, really bothers me. Heaven help you oldandslow if you ever find yourself injured and subject to the system you appear to be advocating.
According to the above link:oldandslow wrote:Interesting case involving Google finding no liability. http://volokh.com/2011/07/28/utah-trial ... st-google/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests