Posted on 03/23/2012 9:17:49 AM PDT by Twotone
A federal judge in Mississippi has ended a long-running suit that attempted to hold a selection of U.S. utilities and coal and oil companies responsible for flooding damaged caused by Hurricane Katrina.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Where do people find the sleazeball lawyers who will file this kind of cr@p lawsuit?
Time to take the plaintiff’s lawyers out back for a good tar and feather session.
Under slimy rocks.
Just implement loser-pays. The suits will stop instantly.
I'd look to Al Gore for recommending a sleazeball lawyer infected with AlGoreitus.
we already have that in most all cases.
How about we end “defendant pays at the start of a suit”. Many of these types of cases the law requires the plaintiff finance the plaintiff lawyers DURING the suit.
also we have loser pays for appeal cases.
There are good lawyers, bad lawyers, totally assinine, incompetent lawyers (who are now lower-level politicians), dishonest sleezebag dirtbag lawyers (senators and presidents) ...and finally, Mississippi lawyers.
The only thing that worries me about 'loser-pays' is that it could make it difficult for any plaintiff without deep pockets to take on an opponent that is heavily capitalized without risking losing it all - especially if the bigger, better-funded defendant (usually with a bevy of pretty clever lawyers on call) manages to get an otherwise valid lawsuit dismissed on some thin technicality.
If 'loser pays' would have to be decided as a separate legal action, I'll be ALL in favor of it. I would hate for the loser to be subjected to the winner's legal fees without some recourse or adjudication.
I'm just sayin'''
Can I sue Stop and Shop for the extra ten lbs I’m carrying?
Why was this suit “long running?” This should’ve taken about 5 minutes to dismiss and that would be stretching it.
.
That’s a valid point. But the pendulum is currently hard over to the side allowing nonsensical hare brained lawsuits with no down side to the plaintiffs thus increasing the costs to everyone for all types of products and services (especially medical) for liability and malpractice insurance. Firm limitations on awards a jury can bestow, aka Tort Reform, would lessen the incentives plaintiffs and personal injury lawyers have in pursuing such cases. Problem is that most of the people making and adjudicating the law, who could implement tort reform, are spawned from the same stinking mire of law schools and the ABA and are not prone to derailing the gravy train.
Best argument going for looser pays. The Lawyers taking these kinds of cases should be on the hook for whatever their percentage of the suit amount.
I know, I know: water vapor is a green house gas. However, the amount of water vapor in the air is not determined by the amount evaporated in cooling towers.
No, you bring up some good points. What it would end, I believe, are the frivolous pain-and-suffering lawsuits. Proving liability for injuries, health-care costs, and lost wages is fairly straightforward.
But trying, on top of those, to become a millionaire because of somebody's mistake is seriously crippling business and medicine. I think it might also end or, at least, seriously crimp, the so-called ambulance-chasers who now work for "free" -- free meaning they take 1/3 of the award.
I'm sure it's not ideal, but it's the best I can think of to rein in the out-of-control tort lawyer industry.
Where is "we?" Mississippi?
'Cuz we sure don't have it in New York.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.