The Threat from Lawyers is No Joke

Imprimis ^ | March, 2004 | Walter Olson

[i_dont_chat]

My point is that the hotel employees should have called the police.

Almost any other person would have been taken away in handcuffs, after attacking a hotel guest. There's the negligence.

Mrs. Harris did not want to leave the hotel. The employees had to physically subdue her and then she was led outside, and directly placed behind the wheel.

This aspect was soft-pedalled in the trail. Why, I'm not sure. But I can see why the daughter claimed negligence against the Hilton Hotel in her father's death.

I don't think this was a good example to support the author's premise. That's all that I am saying.

[philetus]

Laws have been passed that primarly help lawyers.
Politicians make and pass the laws.
Politicians are lawyers

[Bigun]

Could we have a class-action lawsuit against the unethical trial lawyers?

Of course we could but it would be tried in a fourm in which only lawyers speak the language!

Maybe that would stop them.

Given the above, I very much doubt it.

[KevinB]

It would be interesting to find out how many Freepers are lawyers. Here we are being blasted by people having the same core beliefs we do. I wonder how many people on this thread think that Ted Olsen and Mark Levin are just another couple of f***ing lawyers.

[KevinB]

And voir dire makes it possible to select a jury worthy of blame, does it not?

Voir dire allows one to make the best of the jury pool that he is given. Ever wonder why most of the nonsense we're hearing about (to wit: OJ) is happening in big cities?

[Bigun]

Most of the lawsuits he mentions went nowhere;

Yep! Nowhere but the courthouse and costs were incurred. I won't stop either until we make those responsible PAY dearly for frivilious filings.

In a majority of states, contributory negligence is the rule. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% responsible for his damages, he/she gets nothing.

Perhaps this is true in most states but certianly not ALL of them.

Recent rule changes have actually, in theory at least, made it more, not less, difficult for lawyers to bring frivolous lawsuits.

GOOD!!! Not a moment to soon either. Broadened discovery rules make the litigation process more, not less, fair to all litigants. Shouldn't a defendant in a slip and fall case be able to discover whether the plaintiff had had treatment for a previous neck injury

ABSOLUTELY!!! If you want to blame someone, blame judges (for not granting sanctions in more cases) and juries (for making ridiculous awards), not lawyers.

I'm sorry, but to most lay people the distinction between judges and lawyers gets lost in the shuffle.

I know it's good sport to bash the legal profession, but I can honestly tell you after twenty years of law practice that 90% of lawyers work hard to hold themselves to a higher standard.

Yep! And, as has been previously said here I believe, the other 10% give the rest of you a bad name.

[Bigun]

I STRONGLY diagree.

[rmlew]

As a former premi (36 weeks, 3lb, highland
As the son of a physician who work in Medical IT, I have nothing but contempt for ambulance chasers.

[Bigun]

Lawyers Now Have Control of Nation Once Ruled by Law

[i_dont_chat]

Duly noted that you diagree. lol

[scoopscandal]

Thought you'd be interested in following this thread...

Kindest Regards,

[DLfromthedesert]

Ditto to what you said. The peds surgeon that will be forced into retirement on April 1 unless some drastic measure is taken is a dedicated, brilliant, accomplished doctor, as are her 2 partners.

This would be a tragedy for all the babies and children who depend on her skills. This is the work God has ordained her to do.

[KevinB]

Yep! Nowhere but the courthouse and costs were incurred. I won't stop either until we make those responsible PAY dearly for frivilious filings.

The rules are in place. The judges need to enforce them.

Perhaps this is true in most states but certainly not ALL of them.

Correct, but those states use comparative negligence. This means that the parties bear the damages based on their own degree of negligence. If the defendant is negligent but the plaintiff is deemed to be equally negligent, the plaintiff only gets half. Seems fair to me.

I'm sorry, but to most lay people the distinction between judges and lawyers gets lost in the shuffle.

No surprise there - all forms of prejudice are based on ignorance.

And, as has been previously said here I believe, the other 10% give the rest of you a bad name.

On that we can agree.

[duckandcover]

Maybe the Free Republic will be sued in class action for writing articles that are too long.

This cases unnecesary eye strain and neck problems looking at the computer screen. Thus, this contributes to medical problems that might have to be paid for by the state if someone on "public aid" were to read this article (on a public library computer, for example) and developed severe myopia and crooked neck.

Hmmmm.....

Could be a whole new world of class actions.

[longtermmemmory]

What is going on in the civil arena is the expansion of the concept of "proximate cause". Where before we had a line where responsibility stopped. (ie the car thief who steals a car does not make the car owner responsible.)

I would support a "personal resonsibility rule". We could call it "the dumb sh*t rule" If you are that dumb you deserve it.

Additionally those who support looser pays need to realise we already have that. Court costs (depositions, experts, service, etc.) are automatically chargable to the loosing party. Insurance contracts almost universally contain a prevailing party attorney fee clause. The fact of life is that the loosing plaintiff is generally peniless. So even prevailing for such "loser pays" is pointless. Since the USA abolished debtor's prisons and indentured servitude there is no way to force collection.

Perhaps we can shut down the number of state law schools. Does ANY state need more than three law schools?

[Bigun]

ONLY in the minds of lawyers are employees of a hotel held responsible for the actions of a hotel guest!

[longtermmemmory]

actually it was said in a conspiracy to take over the governemnt.

For every lawyer with an absurd argument is a defending lawyer. Without lawyers there would have been no defenders to the 2nd amendment, they would have swept abolition of the 2nd amendment across the USA like a dust storm.

Enforcemnt of contracts in court is also part of what makes the USA's ecconomy so attractive.

The issue is the tort reform. for example we still need to punish "suits" who calculate death from products as a cost of doing business, ala the infamous pinto case where it was decided the pay-offs in PI cases was cheeper than fixing the exploding gas tank problem.

Proximate cause needs to be defined and limited. Thus we can re-awaken "intervening supervening criminal acts" to provide a line to liability. (ie the stolen car used in a crime, solen gun, liquid cocain hidden in the sodabottle, etc.)

[longtermmemmory]

ONLY a jury can validate a total absurd arguement from a lawyer which ingnors an intervening criminal act.

[BykrBayb]

Very good. When I first started reading it, I thought it was true. Most of it was so believable. But then I read "Union carpenters and electricians likewise out of work when the housing industry collapsed due to a lack of materials soon followed. Democratic politicians who rose to challenge and calm their ire, found themselves ejected from union halls." That cannot be true! The union carpenters and electricians would have picketed their former bosses, and sued to get their jobs back. Nevermind that the contractors were out of business. They could be forced to go back into business, give the workers a hefty raise, and pay reparations for time lost. Why would the union blame democratic politicians? That's just crazy talk! I'm pretty sure the rest of this story is true though.

[i_dont_chat]

You don't know this case.

Mrs. Harris was not a guest of the hotel. She was on the property to cause a disturbance.

She was there to confront her husband with his lover, and she physically attacked the other woman, tearing off her blouse, right there in the lobby of the hotel.

That should have been sufficient reason for the employees of the hotel to call the police. Sadly, they did not.

I realize you are trying to say that the suit against the hotel was not warranted, but you don't know the facts.