Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OXENinFLA
This kinda stuff would happen ALL THE TIME if we had the British system of loser pays.

There'd be fewer of these nuisance lawsuits, too.

9 posted on 02/21/2005 12:02:57 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur

I'd support a loser-pays system only up to the amount of money the loser spent pressing his case. Huge financial resources do help you win a case. How unfair is it for someone to lose a case because the other guys had a bigger legal staff, and then be charged with paying for the legal staff?


25 posted on 02/21/2005 12:10:30 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
This kinda stuff would happen ALL THE TIME if we had the British system of loser pays.

I don't have a problem with the plaintiff being forced to pay the defendant's legal expenses if their suit is deemed "grossly unreasonable" or "non-sensical".

But I am somewhat concerned about a blanket loser-pays system. Good cases do lose sometimes. And many other cases are arguably legitimate claims that could reasonably go either way in a court of law. I have a problem with making the loser automatically pay in such instances. I don't think someone should have to put their livelihood on the line if they have a reasonable case to bring.

Perhaps a comprosmise solution would be to leave it up to the jury. Have them make two rulings. One on the merit of the case. And then secondarily (if the plaintiff loses), to rule on whether the case was "grossly unreasonable" or "non-sensical". If so, then the loser pays.

29 posted on 02/21/2005 12:12:28 PM PST by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson