Interesting legal question. First you need to determine what state law applies. The law of the state where the plaintiff viewed the SP post? The law of the stzte of residence of the person who made the post in question? The home state of SP? The applicable state law could make a big difference. Interesting article in WSJ about a recently proposed law in Hawaii. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36050.html

Lawyer here. It'll never happen. Even if someone sued, the nature of the activity is perceived to be so inherently risky that any reasonable trier of fact will find that you've assumed the risk of injury. Any complaint would likely be tossed out immediately.

People seem to have a really uninformed, almost perverse notion of what you can sue for.

oldandslow wrote:Interesting legal question. First you need to determine what state law applies. The law of the state where the plaintiff viewed the SP post? The law of the stzte of residence of the person who made the post in question? The home state of SP? The applicable state law could make a big difference. Interesting article in WSJ about a recently proposed law in Hawaii. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36050.html

Wow, that's almost identical to the link that I posted!

Same article. I shouldn't have linked to it again, but it is interesting. 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.

Marmaduke wrote:

Bryan Benn wrote:

Arthur Digbee wrote:Perhaps we could hold state lawmakers liable for building roads on which people get into fatal accidents. That makes more sense.

I am tragically amused by the members of the woman's party blaming the guidebook author for her death after she became separated from the party and was never seen again. Where, exactly, were they?

And those who sell fuel at the pumps must be liable as well?

Can we go all the way back to the inventor of the "wheel"? No wheel, no buggy's, no cars, no fuel, no roads?

The wheel is to blame for all our ills.

We're going to reach a point that if a kid screws up, he can successfully sue his parents for making him.

You may get lost. You probably WILL get lost. The chances of getting lost multiply geometrically after the sun goes down, due to poor visibility. The sun goes down at least once a day in this area. Not to say that you won't get lost during daylight hours. In either event, carry a flashlight

Brilliant!

The "Beer Bicycle" in my new profile pic is a good example of the difference between Europe and the US in terms of liability.

Can you imagine that going down a city street in the US!! Every lawyer in the country would be following it with great expectations of a windfall.

Now, back to my Pilsner!!

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.

Just look at the injustice in Europe, where many countries have "loser pays."

Is there an independent way to judge whether claims are meritorious, not tied to our legal system? Surely it can't be based on who wins; since there is usually one team of lawyers arguing against another team, and typically one side wins and one side loses. The winners are not always the people who brought the suit.

fatdad wrote:Lawyer here. People seem to have a really uninformed, almost perverse notion of what you can sue for.

Lawyer spouse here. Spouse defended a parked car at traffic light hit by a skateboarder crossing against the light. Won. Still cost client money.

Examples easily multiplied. I think it's reasonable to think about what you might have to defend, even if it's an easy win.

Homeowners' policy would presumably defend. But insurer would note that insured is engaging in an activity (making SP pages) that constitutes a risk that they had not previously anticipated, and in due course their underwriters will take it into account (and possibly raise your rates).

Former lawyer here.

First of all, lawyers represent clients. Lawyers do not dream up lawsuits because they have nothing better to do.

PI plaintiff's lawyers typically get a retainer plus about 30% of any settlement or judgement, plus expenses. This tends to change many lawyers' view of whether they have anything "better to do", especially since most cases never get to trial. Are you really saying that you're placing the blame on the client who approaches the lawyer and asks, "can I sue?" ? That's like blaming the patient when a doctor orders unnecessary surgery.

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."

I memorized the rules of ethics in order to pass the bar, but I guarantee most lawyers I met had long forgotten all of them. I never saw anything remotely close to effective enforcement. Most bar associations publish the results of their disciplinary proceedings. Take a look at the records for your state. I bet you'll find several cases of lawyers being disciplined for bad bookkeeping (i.e., "commingling" of clients' funds) a handful of cases of lawyers being punished for repeated embarrassing behavior (showing up drunk to court, certain kinds of criminal convictions), and that's about it. I can think of exactly one case of a lawyer being disciplined by a bar association for frivolous lawsuits, and that wasn't in my state - the discipline came long after the lawsuits made national news. You do see a few Rule 11 cases once in a while (accusations of misconduct made to the court, not to the bar association), but those are rare compared to the numbers of obviously bogus filings, for two simple reasons: 1) rule 11 hearings almost never result in any punishment for the accused, and meanwhile they annoy the judge, who may take it out on the accusing lawyer from the other side 2) most bogus filings result in bogus settlements since the amount at issue is less than the cost of an effective defense (never mind the cost of a rule 11 hearing).

the legal system, which is designed to benefit everyone needing justice

I know a thing or two about system design, and this system has many hallmarks of being designed by lawyers for lawyers. The "american rule" is a particularly blatant example of a rule whose primary effect is to enrich lawyers. I would much prefer "losing party pays".

[quote="nartreb"]PI plaintiff's lawyers typically get a retainer plus about 30% of any settlement or judgement, plus expenses. This tends to change many lawyers' view of whether they have anything "better to do", especially since most cases never get to trial.[quote]
Arthur's example made a lot more sense than natreb's. You are always going to get some riduculous cases and granted that is a good example of one. In that instance, however, the person should have been covered by their auto policy. Pity the stupid lawyer who took that case. Lots of work and nothing to show for it. Lesson learned. The problem with discussions like these is that people take away from them that there are more cases like the skateboarding one than others that have lots of merit, which is far from the truth. Plus, are we really advocating a national "loser pays" policy just to get rid of a few lame cases? Should we also scrap Medicare because some ambulance companies and clinics also game the system?

Also natreb, I disagree with your statements on law practice. Contigency cases don't include an upfront payment; that's why there's contingent. Your statements just contained either half truths or a failure to understand how those cases work. Lawyers get a third of the settlement, plus expenses (which are simply a reimbursement for out of pocket expenses) ONLY if they win. Would you take a bad case that you know has little merit of prevailing, spend a bunch of money on it in the hopes that you'll get paid back? Of course you wouldn't. Lawyers don't either. Your statement that most cases never get to trial (which is true) also implies that lawyers are getting paid without going to trial. However, what you dont' say is that many cases--including ones that never make it to trial--never result in any kind of award for the plaintiff.

Also your statement about the "system" is just ridiculous. The legislature creates laws, not the lawyers. I learned that in civics in grade school. I can't see why you aren't a lawyer any more. You seem to have a strong bias against your former profession. That's fine. It took me a long time to find my path in the law, which I came very close to leaving. But you should exclude that bias when you're advocating for policy changes.

There are lots of lawyers in the legislature; about 50% in the US Congress. And trial lawyers are a big part of the support for the Democratic party, so there is likely influence for legislation.

Of my friends and family who were sued, I'd easily say that the lawsuits were frivolous (if not bizarre) 100% of the time. But, I'm just one person.