Posted on 01/25/2004 5:27:35 AM PST by RJCogburn
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
IT DOESN'T take much to get slammed as a racist these days. Just ask Jennifer Cundiff.
Back in February 2001, the Southwest Airlines flight attendant was trying to coax passengers boarding a flight from Las Vegas to Kansas City to find their seats quickly so the plane could take off. "Eenie meenie minie moe," she said over the intercom, "pick a seat, we gotta go."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
And herein lies the problem. The system should be loser pays, and most of these frivilous lawsuits would dry up and die. It would also prevent special interest groups like gun grabbers and environazis from attempting to sue legitimate businesses out of existence.
Eenie meenie minie moe...
Although I grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood, until I saw the movie "Pulp Fiction" I had never heard of that version of the "eenie meenie minie moe" bit either. My goodness it is easy thing to be labeled a racist these days.
Ping for you MH, for comments, if you have an interest.
The justice system is a "business" top to bottom and the shyster lawyers are milking it for every dime possible.
John Edwards is a fine example.
EXACTLY!!
(interrupted by minority) I am incensed with your HATE SPEECH! The word 'THE' can be followed with the phrase 'colored person must be lynched', showing that you are a RACIST!!!
But....
(interrupted by minority) BUTT? Yes, colored people are the BUTT of all of your jokes, RACIST!!!
See,...
(interrupted by minority) C???? C???? Does 'c' stand for COLORED, which you HATE, or CAUCASIAN, which you LOVE?????RACIST!!!
I wish someone would pound that into these racist whiners' heads.
We had a local talk radio host feature this story a couple of days ago. He was taking about the fact that there are no consequences for these people who bring frivolous lawsuits and how there are so many people out there that just see it as an opportunity to make money because most of these kinds of cases are settled out of court and the plaintiff has nothing to lose, especially since most of the lawyers bringing these cases to court work on contingency. If there were serious consequences to the plaintiffs in the event of losing the case, there would likely be far less of this nonsense. If they were forced to pay court costs and make restitution for defendants' attorneys' fees and to compensate them for their loss of time, maybe these whiney *ss, litigious control freaks could be reined in and defendants would get bolder about taking cases to trial. This kind of crap is NOT freedom and we need to fight it.
Of course, it is cute and harmless and of course, there is a version that may not be as harmless, but that version wasn't used. The racist version would have been a non-sequitur.
The fact that there are corrupted lame Judges is more the issue that the fact that there are corrupted Americans. The sisters were offended because they choose to be offended. The decided it was all about them and then decided to be offended. Greedy corrupted Americans such as the sisters and their lawyers exist because greedy corrupted Judges exist.
Jack and Jill went up the hill,
each had a dollar and a quarter,
Jill came down with two and a half,
do you still think they went up for water?
(Oh $h!t ... you'll probably do something with that too.)
A straight "loser pays" system would not solve the problems and would not bring justice to the system. First, this system would likely bring more judgements in favor of the plaintiffs because juries would be less likely to rule against a poor or middle class citizen who would then be forced to pay everything they have to a rich corporation. Secondly, to the extent that middle class people were occasionally ruined by failure to win a suit, they would no longer have access to civil justice because they couldn't afford to take the chance of losing. Finally, that idea is based on a failure to understand what the standard should be for the plaintiff to win.
Many of the frivilous cases already go in favor of the plaintiffs because juries feel sorry for them. Juries see some poor loser sitting in the courtroom and want to help. They look across the room and see a corporation with millions of dollars in assets, and they vote to give some of the corporation's money to the plaintiff. If they knew that finding against the plaintiff would cause him to lose what little he had, they'd be even less likely to find for the defense. In many cases, they'd likely find for the plaintiff but recommend the defense pay only a nominal sum.
In cases where a middle-class plaintiff didn't get the sympathy of the jury, a finding for the defense could cause financial ruin. A company that thinks it has a good shot of winning can quickly find ways to claim millions of dollars of defense costs, and a judgment against the plaintiff would bankrupt most middle-class families. Rather than risk losing everything, many families would allow themselves to be cheated. The civil justice system would then only exist for people who were such losers that being bankrupt wouldn't matter. Someone on welfare anyway isn't going to care whether he owes two million dollars to the courts. He isn't working hard to build a home and save to send kids to college. He can still sue to his heart's content.
Finally, the standard in a civil case is supposed to be a "preponderance of evidence" and not just a slight lean in favor of the plaintiff. There should be cases where the plaintiff is right but loses the suit because the evidence doesn't quite reach a "preponderance." If the case is 60/40 for the plaintiff, I wouldn't consider it a "preponderance of evidence." The question before forcing anyone to give up money should be "Given the current evidence, how often could we punish someone wrongly?" If the evidence is such that finding for the plaintiff means that 4 of 10 innocent defendents will lose, then the jury should find for the defendant.
In my work as an engineer, I've seen pieces of evidence from claims against corporations. The facts of some cases as they were explained to me could have gone either way. In one case in particular, I leaned towards believing that the plaintiff was right and that company operations had done some harm. I'm not certain that the evidence was enough to win the case, but I think the civil justice system should be open enough to force companies to negotiate in good faith in these situations. If the company can bankrupt someone simply by claiming huge legal fees as part of its costs, then many people will not be able to afford the risk. The result would be that companies could engage in wrongful actions without fear of reprisal.
I would support a system where a separate phase of the trial determines whether the suit had any merit. This phase of the trial should be held under another judge. If the jury finds that the suit was frivilous, they could assess awards against the plaintiff and his lawyers. In some cases, they would also be allowed to censure the original judge for letting the case come to trial in the first place. Many of these cases could and should be thrown out of court before they begin. The judges who refuse to dismiss these cases should be held accountable.
What you propose is a very cumbersome system; where justice may become too difficult for the truly injured.
A "loser pays" system installs a stop sign where both plaintiffs and attorneys will be required to weigh the merits of their suit before it appears before a judge and jury. And a means to hold both accountable if they are wrong.
Unfortunately, "loser pays" also punishes those who are right but whose legitimate suit doesn't quite reach the standard of "preponderance of evidence." These are people who are "truly injured" who will not only not be properly compensated but also may lose everything they have for their efforts to pursue compensation. Until a "loser pays" system addresses this injustice, it is not a just or viable option.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
The majority of the fees should be assessed to the loser's lawyer. There are too many lawyers who work on a contingency basis. They can take all kinds of marginal cases, because they can count on winning at least some of them.
If they had to pay, they'd give better legal advice to their clients. And if they don't know enough to tell when a case has solid evidence, they shouldn't be practicing anyway.
I don't think that would happen. There are already attorneys who will advise people for a nominal sum. They will say whether you have no case at all; a case that might prevail in small claims court; or a major case. Many of them will provide other services at costs in proportion to the expected claim.
These are the attorneys who make our system work. The ones who go after huge contingency cases, particularly class action suits, are a blight, and I wouldn't care if all of them went out of business.
Given that they would be SO offended as to file a lawsuit in this case....I think their lives are ALREADY ruined...
I'm not doubting that there are good attorneys who will give people good advice about whether they have a case. However, no attorney can give a guarantee. My point is that there are some cases that could go either way, but the fact that they could go either way doesn't mean that they are frivilous cases that shouldn't have been brought to court. Unfortunately, if the loser always pays the winner's costs, then many of these cases will be kept out of court because regular people who lose would be bankrupt by the lawyers' fees of a large corporation. This situation would give too much advantage to corporations and other rich people who could do harm to others without fear of legal reprisal.
We need to strike a balance. People shouldn't be able to play "litigation lottery" and become rich from frivilous lawsuits or injuries that resulted from their own irresponsible actions. At the same time, companies shouldn't be able to take advantage of people who don't have the money to stand up against them. In the current system, the former problem is bigger. In a "loser pays" system, the latter problem would be bigger. I'm advocating for a better balance that doesn't fall into either extreme.
That's why I say that the loser's lawyers should pay the majority of the costs. The system we have today rewards the "ambulance chasers". Even in cases where there has been damage, the real victim often has to wait years to collect any money, and often the lawyers have drained off much of the reward.
Reputable lawyers know if they are pursuing a worthwhile case or if they are just hoping that a sympathetic jury will make them rich.
The current system is about the lawyers, not about the "regular people".
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.