But hey. Ya file a frivolous lawsuit - ya takes your chances.
Stumble across that bimbo while strumming the remote! ;^ Not what you are thinking.
If one were to side with that hank of a hairball. If some one driving a car, did damage to me or my kin then i could sue ; Car manufacturer,oil and tire companies, associated with that vehicles operation!
Colorado has a law that says that wont happen, in that state!
Then don’t be sucked into the left’s political bs. Maybe they’ll have a fundraiser to help you out. Next time, make sure you have a case before you try to blackmail someone via the court system. Liberal idiots.
Suck it up, MadCow!
They should sue the lawyer who convinced them they could win such a frivolous suit.
Good. People who file frivolous lawsuits should pay, and these claims were just about as frivolous as they come.
“That’s some catch, that Catch-22.”
Yossarrian
Maddow does not tell you that the parents are paid employees of the Brady Center.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2015/04/well-this-sheds-new-light-on-things.html
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.
They had to be informed by their attorney of the risk I assume and so they deserve no pity for making a bad decision.
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.
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...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That’s what ya get lefty.
It’s a shame they lost their child but they should have known better than to go after the people that manufacture bullets. They knew the risks and the knew the lawsuit was frivolous.