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'''
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.
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.