Manufacturer Liability

by **fatdad** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:34 pm

Chewbacca wrote:
Dow Williams wrote:"Loser pays" is the easiest and most effective tort reform legislation that must eventually get passed if we are to stay competitively productive with the rest of the world. I urge everyone to look past lawyers' rhetoric and study the issue further. We simply ended up with too many law schools, it has become too easy to get into law school, too easy to graduate....and too much easy money being made compared to teachers, nurses and even doctors, who can make more, but have to put in more effort overall. This recent wallstreet crisis has put a few out on the street, but that just means more lawyers "suing for food".

Couldn't agree more. Loser pays (with certain exceptions) is the way to go. And I'm a lawyer myself.

The US also needs a law that prohibites a lawyer from from taking a cut of the amount awarded. The problem is that lawyers take cases on the basis of "no cure no pay". Guess where that leads to.

I think something like 70 % of the lawyers in the world are based in the US. Enough said.

Some questions:

1. What kind of law do you practice and who do you represent?

2. If you prohibit contingency cases, how are average joes going to afford representation?

3. In most of the world, access to the legal system is a very real problem. Why are you quoting that as an endorsement?

by **MoapaPk** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:56 pm

fatdad wrote:
2. If you prohibit contingency cases, how are average joes going to afford representation?

3. In most of the world, access to the legal system is a very real problem. Why are you quoting that as an endorsement?

I've got quite a few friends from "Loser Pays" countries, and they don't seem to feel that they are legally oppressed. In fact, they seemed to delight in telling me about US legal issues that they considered absurd.

One French friend was reading about a case where a guy, who had smoked for the last ~40 years, and now had lung cancer. This fellow successfully sued the tobacco companies. My friend -- who hates smoking -- made the simple point that if you decide to do something stupid and dangerous against a tide of common sense, it is your fault. He didn't see this as a David-against-Goliath case; he felt this guy was one "average joe" who should have been removed from the gene pool.

On the other hand, many casino workers (particularly asthma sufferers) in Las Vegas have tried to sue their former employers for the intense second-hand smoke. The casinos advertise they have very good filtration systems that filter out smoke, but apparently they mainly try to deodorize the air. The workers don't always sue because of the unhealthy environment, so much as the fact that they are fired when they complain. This strikes me as a true David-against-Goliath case, but I don't see lots of lawyers rushing in to help them. So far the casinos have a pretty good record in court.

by **simonov** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:03 pm

MoapaPk wrote:He didn't see this as a David-against-Goliath case; he felt this guy was one "average joe" who should have been removed from the gene pool.

On the other hand, many casino workers (particularly asthma sufferers) in Las Vegas have tried to sue their former employers for the intense second-hand smoke.

I dunno. These casino workers don't seem any less responsible for their problems than the smokers themselves.

Had none of them ever actually visited a casino before they chose to work in one?

by **fatdad** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:15 pm

MoapaPk wrote:
fatdad wrote:
2. If you prohibit contingency cases, how are average joes going to afford representation?

3. In most of the world, access to the legal system is a very real problem. Why are you quoting that as an endorsement?

I've got quite a few friends from "Loser Pays" countries, and they don't seem to feel that they are legally oppressed. In fact, they seemed to delight in telling me about US legal issues that they considered absurd.

One French friend was reading about a case where a guy, who had smoked for the last ~40 years, and now had lung cancer. This fellow successfully sued the tobacco companies. My friend -- who hates smoking -- made the simple point that if you decide to do something stupid and dangerous against a tide of common sense, it is your fault. He didn't see this as a David-against-Goliath case; he felt this guy was one "average joe" who should have been removed from the gene pool.

On the other hand, many casino workers (particularly asthma sufferers) in Las Vegas have tried to sue their former employers for the intense second-hand smoke. The casinos advertise they have very good filtration systems that filter out smoke, but apparently they mainly try to deodorize the air. The workers don't always sue because of the unhealthy environment, so much as the fact that they are fired when they complain. This strikes me as a true David-against-Goliath case, but I don't see lots of lawyers rushing in to help them. So far the casinos have a pretty good record in court.

MoapaPk, first, never quote the French if you want to convince anyone about anything (I hope you're not French). Plus, it sounds like the guy you know is as unfamiliar with the legal system as lots of people on this site, so the example isn't really persuasive.

And, second, I think you did illustrate a big problem that would be far worse if we had a loser pays system: unless you have a REALLY good case with a GREAT certain of damages, no attorney is his or her right mind is going to invest $50-100K in a case that may go no where. Even when you have what appears to be a decent case--the casino one--under our current system it can be very difficult to obtain representation.

And BTW, manufacturing costs are so high because of lawyers, it's because of the insurance companies who ensure them, claiming their rates need to be so high because of lawyers. Several years ago in California, the voters were fooled into voting for limit caps in medical malpractice actions, a ballot initiative supported by the insurance industries. The claimed purpose was to reduce insurance costs for doctors (which in theory should have reduced health care costs). The results? Premiums didn't go down, but the insurance companies' profits did.

by **aemter** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:23 pm

redneck wrote:Is there anyone in this thread besides me who actually buys commercial liability insurance?

When I was in real estate, I carried E&O. My family had a traveling entertainment business that carried an Inland Marine policy on. We currently carry commercial liability on our permanent facility. So yes, our checkbook is familiar with liability insurance.

by **MoapaPk** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:51 pm

redneck wrote:
MoapaPk wrote:He didn't see this as a David-against-Goliath case; he felt this guy was one "average joe" who should have been removed from the gene pool.

On the other hand, many casino workers (particularly asthma sufferers) in Las Vegas have tried to sue their former employers for the intense second-hand smoke.

I dunno. These casino workers don't seem any less responsible for their problems than the smokers themselves.

Had none of them ever actually visited a casino before they chose to work in one?

Actually, that's more-or-less the way I feel; this is a "right to work" state.

by **MoapaPk** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:03 pm

fatdad wrote:
MoapaPk, first, never quote the French if you want to convince anyone about anything (I hope you're not French).

I'm mainly French-Canadian, but I don't think that has much impact on me.

(...)

And BTW, manufacturing costs are so high because of lawyers, it's because of the insurance companies who ensure them, claiming their rates need to be so high because of lawyers. Several years ago in California, the voters were fooled into voting for limit caps in medical malpractice actions, a ballot initiative supported by the insurance industries. The claimed purpose was to reduce insurance costs for doctors (which in theory should have reduced health care costs). The results? Premiums didn't go down, but the insurance companies' profits did.

You know... I don't know. I keep looking for a reasoned analysis. I guess we have to divide "health insurance" into liability insurance, and personal health insurance.

The profit on revenue for personal health insurance was on average about 2-3% in the last year; about 5% over the last few years. (I'll skip medicare, because most of its procedures are higher-ticket.) But one has to question the size of the revenue stream, which is enormous and much higher than it need be. And a lot of the medical revenue stream is due to CYA procedures, and high-tech procedures that people don't really need, but demand.

I had some intense medical tests 7.5 years ago; and the unnecessary repetition and inefficiency didn't reflect well on whoever caused it. But that's another thread.

by **fatdad** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:15 pm

Chewbacca wrote:
fatdad wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:
Dow Williams wrote:"Loser pays" is the easiest and most effective tort reform legislation that must eventually get passed if we are to stay competitively productive with the rest of the world. I urge everyone to look past lawyers' rhetoric and study the issue further. We simply ended up with too many law schools, it has become too easy to get into law school, too easy to graduate....and too much easy money being made compared to teachers, nurses and even doctors, who can make more, but have to put in more effort overall. This recent wallstreet crisis has put a few out on the street, but that just means more lawyers "suing for food".

Couldn't agree more. Loser pays (with certain exceptions) is the way to go. And I'm a lawyer myself.

The US also needs a law that prohibites a lawyer from from taking a cut of the amount awarded. The problem is that lawyers take cases on the basis of "no cure no pay". Guess where that leads to.

I think something like 70 % of the lawyers in the world are based in the US. Enough said.

Some questions:

1. What kind of law do you practice and who do you represent?

2. If you prohibit contingency cases, how are average joes going to afford representation?

3. In most of the world, access to the legal system is a very real problem. Why are you quoting that as an endorsement?

1. Just about any kind of legal problems that involve small businesses and private people - except criminal law, social law and taxes. Norway (a "losers pay" legal system).
2. Most people have an insurance that covers their legal fees (limited to certain types of disputes) and/or can actually afford a lawyer. We're not THAT expensive compared to the amounts of money involved in many disputes. There is also a Government paid system for poorer people to cover their legal expenses in certain cases.
3. Access to the legal system isn't such a big problem here. One of the advantages is that lawyers have to be more competitive to survive. In other words lower their fees to get cases and the result is that more people can afford to use their services and take cases to court. I don't see many clearly winner cases that should have gone to court but where the client can't afford it. There are enough younger lawyers who would take on the cases on a no-cure-no-pay basis. Even established lawyers would do this if they are certain of winning.

"Loser pays" also means that disputing parties are keen on finding a solution. Depending on the lawyers involved, the vast majority of cases are solved outside court and also after only 2-3 letters and 3-4 phone calls between the lawyers. The clients on both sides are usually keen on limiting the legal expenses and therefore instruct their lawyers to try and negotiate an agreement.

Thanks for your response. However, the problem I have with where you're going from is that your advocating a page from an entirely different system. You're talking about a country that is easily one of the most heavily subsidized in the world, probably top 3 or so I'm guessing. The additional taxes citizens pay over there are probably far higher than what citizens would pay here, even when insurers shift the costs of their losses due to manufacturer liablity, etc., onto their customers.

Also, people here don't have legal insurance. If they did, the insurer pays the attorney so little there's little incentive to put that much work into a reasonable settlement.

Moreover, your claim that loser pays prompts fast settlements is probably true, but ignores that the fact that even strong cases may settle for far less than what might be obtained at trial based upon the fear of potentially paying the other sides costs. The loser pays doesn't guarantee a fair result, particularly when you keep in mind that the loser isn't always the person who has the better case. It's often who has the better lawyer, who always works for--you guessed it--the large corporations with large coffers.

Manufacturer Liability

Who is online