Posted on 05/22/2015 2:26:38 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
~snip~
Maddow opened her show with heart-rending footage of the Aurora trial. She highlighted the testimony of Brenton Lowak, whose friend Jessica Ghawi -- a 24-year-old aspiring sports reporter -- died in the shooting.
~snip~
The parents unsuccessfully sued the retailers who made the firearm that killed their daughter. Colorado state law requires that plaintiffs who sue the manufacturers of gun products pay the companies' legal fees if they lose.
“That’s not a typo,” Maddow said, adding, “The mother and father of the victim who died in the Aurora mass shooting have just been ordered to pay a quarter-million dollars to the gun makers who sold the bullets that were used in the Aurora mass shooting -- the parents of the girl who was killed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Some states, Florida for example (unless it has changed in the 10 years since I lived there) have what are called “deep pocket” laws.
“Deep pocket” law allows you to sue those who are peripherally associated with the event and the damage award is portioned according to who has the deepest pockets.
As an example (this goes back a ways), in Florida a man was using a pay phone owned & operated by GTE. A drunk driver ran up the sidewalk and creamed the poor guy. He sued the driver AND GTE because he was using their phone. The final payout made GTE pay the vast majority of the damage award because GTE had the deepest pockets, not because GTE was responsible for the event.
Not making this up.
Maybe some liberal lawyer trying to prove a point talked them into the suit. Lawyer should be on the hook for not settling and bring the suit in the first place.
Kinda like My BIL.
They had to be informed by their attorney of the risk I assume and so they deserve no pity for making a bad decision.
“...ordered to pay a quarter-million dollars to the gun makers who sold the bullets that were used...”
“writer seems clueless here”
Writer was just quoting that clueless Maddow guy on MSNBC.
Your sympathy is admirable. Perhaps you should match it with your generosity and send the grieving parents $250,000 to ease their suffering.
That way, the rest of us who buy products from these suppliers won’t have to kick in extra for the products we buy to compensate for the loss they incurred having to defend this frivolous lawsuit.
OK, obviously the lawsuit was frivolous, because there was no issue of a defective product here. The product was legally sold and functioned properly.
But what I don't understand is: suppose, for the sake of argument, that the basis of the lawsuit was instead that the product was defective. And suppose, in that case, that the plaintiff, for whatever reason, still lost the case.
I don't see how you can force the plaintiff to pay in a case like that, where the defectiveness of the product was at issue.
Just as we shouldn't have a justice system which rewards frivolity, we also shouldn't have a system wherein a huge corporate entity with virtually unlimited resources subverts justice by using endless wrangling, motions, and delays, or exerts illegitimate influence.
As in many real-life circumstances, it seems to me that there should be some mechanism for determining frivolity, and only then should the loser pay.
Since it's a well-established precedent that you can't sue a manufacturer of a product if it's not defective (and if there has been no deceptive marketing) then I believe there should only be "loser pays" in cases where there is a determination that the suit was frivolous.
I have to imagine that there are plenty of plaintiffs who lose lawsuits that are not frivolous, and when that's the case, I don't believe they should have to pay. That quarter million is just a drop in the bucket for the corporation.
To clarify, I believe in "loser pays" for frivolous cases, but certainly not necessarily for all cases, and it seems to me that, once the case is lost, a simple judicial determination could settle the question of frivolity and whether a "loser pays" provision should apply.
I'm also strongly of the opinion that if the plaintiff's lawyer did not inform the client of the potential for this ruling, then it easily meets the criteria for legal malpractice, and therefore it is the lawyer who should be on the hook for the legal fees, plus damages.
I agree. And if they can’t come up with the money, they need to be put on a chain gang and work it off.
You start bogus lawsuits you have to pay the piper. The gun manufacturers had no more to do with the womens death then Chevrolet has to do with the thousands of deaths in their cars each year...
This is supposed to be a constitutional republic, ruled by law. If something is against the law, then their is a penalty for doing it. Laws aren’t just for me, they are for this guy too. Some leftist Bloomberg employee does not get to attack honest business for political purposes.
If this guy wanted to go into court and kill Mr. Joker wannabe could he? If he wanted to go into some random sporting goods store and rob it at gunpoint could he? No. It’s called rule of law.
Where does that end?
No waivers.
Bring a bad case. Pay the fees.
What is moral about bringing cases with no merit into a court of law? That is moral to you?
No. That’s not what I’m saying. At All! I’m not talking about what the family did - I’m talking about what the company COULD do. Sure, the family brought a case with no merit (and shame on the lawyer who told them they had a case). But I’m looking at it from the perspective of a family who lost a child and are already devastated and maybe that devastation played into their bad decision to bring a case in search of some kind of closure that will never come.
The company is within it’s legal rights to collect a huge sum from this family. If they did, and if the family is average middle class, it would likely destroy them. I’m saying the company could have compassion on the family. It would be a good thing to do and probably win the company some PR points to boot.
I am NOT saying they family bringing a bad lawsuit was a moral thing.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That’s what ya get lefty.
Ever been used frivolously? I have. They deserve to be destroyed.
Ever been sued frivolously? I have. They deserve to be destroyed.
I’m sorry to hear that.
I don’t care one whit about the family’s loss if their intent is now to TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS.
ANYONE trying to do so can go straight to hell.
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.