Immigration for the Elite

Why can't I get one of these "scared of their own shadow" defendant that are so famous? Maybe because they don't exist?? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If that's the case, then would you like to take a stab at explaining why I (and entities under my control) have been sued numerous times with an apparent eye toward initiating "settlement talks?" Maybe I've simply had the good fortune of never having been sued by anyone who actually had a good case!

Where are all these Defendants who just roll over and pay good money for bad lawsuits? I sure wish I'd sue one of them one of these days. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I guess it sort of depends on what the definition of "good money" is. Everyone wants that rare 7-figure payday, but sometimes a lawyer might be able to haul in $25K or so with just a few threats and phone calls, even with a junk nuisance lawsuit. Not a bad day's pay while waiting for the big hit. But for all the rest of us, the existence of a dysfunctional tort system drives up the cost of virtually all goods and services.

I represent folks that are seriously injured or killed, and they still make me get my cases worked up, get them ready to the tune of $20k - $250k in expenses per case, and still I get to try about two or three a year. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Perhaps you are an ethical plaintiffs' lawyer who rejects frivolous junk lawsuits. If so, kudos to you! But if you're intellectually honest, you'll readily admit that many of your brethren are not quite so virtuous.

OTOH, I believe that the tort system is a form of marketplace regulation. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I actually agree with this. In fact, tort actions and the threat thereof do a far better job of enforcing safe/fair business practices than an army of government dweebs. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I agree also, with the caveat that outlandishly, ridiculously large judgments not be allowed for relatively non-serious injuries, and that the right to recover should depend on whether a reasonable person would consider that the defendant actually acted in a negligent fashion. If you hurt yourself because of your own clumsiness or carelessness, you should be on your own.

It would be nice, too, if judges had more authority to de-junk the system by tossing truly ridiculous cases.

I agree also, with the caveat that outlandishly, ridiculously large judgments not be allowed for relatively non-serious injuries, and that the right to recover should depend on whether a reasonable person would consider that the defendant actually acted in a negligent fashion. If you hurt yourself because of your own clumsiness or carelessness, you should be on your own.

It would be nice, too, if judges had more authority to de-junk the system by tossing truly ridiculous cases. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Agreed! A little loser pays and proportionate liability would help.

A little loser pays and proportionate liability would help. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Oh, yeah!

I forgot about that one. Something like the "English Rule" would be a positive step.

Of course, the American Association for Justice (a misnomer if there ever was one) might have a little bit of a problem with these ideas.

I was sued by a couple who was injured in an MVA without any airbag deployment. They claimed that they couldn't work and had emotional distress. The worst part about the ordeal, was I wasn't driving my car when it hit them, it was an ex gf.

The depositions given by the plaintiffs gave all the information needed for my insurance company to fight and have the case thrown out. Neither of the plaintiffs had been working, both were collecting some form of state/federal aid. The last time either had collected a payroll check was 5 years prior to the incident. The male plaintiff was a convicted drug dealer who was recently parolled. They were asking for 100k plus each, my insurance company settled thm down to about 3k each. Case closed.

This will make sense to some but a new concept to the socialists on this board:

When someone sues and wins a huge judgement from xyz corp (or xyz governement entity), the cost of defending the case as well as the judgement amount are ultimately bourne by xyz corp's customers/consumers. In the case of a gov't entity, the taxpayers.

Most of us sane folk understand the need for a system that includes torts, but it shouldn't be like winning the lottery & recognize the real losers are consumers not the business... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Like a lot of things that everyone "knows," there's more urban legend in these types of statements than substance. The best case in point is the Stella settlement. Most people are going off of what they heard through the media initially but have never taken the trouble to verify their "facts" and see how things eventually settled because, among other things, it would weaken the "authority" of such sweeping and incorrect generalizations.

Hell yeah, there has been and will continue to be the occasional "runaway jury" that might give a lot more in a settlement but, as was the case in Mickey D's loss, an overwhelming amount get whittled down. If the reality is that monster judgments are handed out on a daily basis, then TTH (and others) would have located the target rich environment and be happily settled in with hundreds of staffers hauling sacks of cash daily to the bank.

The statements by McDonalds quoted above regarding that they knew the coffee was super hot, could cause significant burns and was unfit to drink, but they had no immediate plans to turn the heat down are really more telling about the corporate mentality and should make those who unilaterally defend them such as Cap'n Buffett take some pause. There was some common sense lacking but, wth, we're not going to change.....brilliant - LOL!

I'm sure we'd all get behind penny coffee and nickel burgers if corporations didn't have to deal with the inconveniences such as having to sell products that have been inspected in order to ensure that they won't kill the person who eats or drinks it. Shoot, all the purveyors of such delights would need do is post signs saying: "Do You Feel Lucky Today? If So, Eat Here!" What's so funny about all of this is the hand-wringing Nervous Nellies tearing groins leaping to defend huge business interests as if they are incapable of taking care of themselves.

I agree also, with the caveat that outlandishly, ridiculously large judgments not be allowed for relatively non-serious injuries, and that the right to recover should depend on whether a reasonable person would consider that the defendant actually acted in a negligent fashion. If you hurt yourself because of your own clumsiness or carelessness, you should be on your own.

It would be nice, too, if judges had more authority to de-junk the system by tossing truly ridiculous cases. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafting is a "relatively non-serious injury."

For all you guys who disagree with the verdict, but claim to be American patriots, I remind you that this case wound its way through the judicial system and wound up with a jury verdict. And you can't tell me Micky D's doesn't employ the best of the silk stocking defense firms. And, as TTH pointed out, the jury verdict was reduced to apportion the Plaintiff's negligence that the jury found.

You guys kill me. You defend this country until it comes to something you don't like. Then, you attack the system as being "unAmerican," and suggest a foreign system would be better.

Dammit, Charles, there you go again, confusing those trafficking in known unknowns with the facts...you're such a piece of work...hee hee.

Nobody here is picking on Stella. What we are complaining about is a legal system that produces "lottery winners". The "Stella Awards" are pretty good examples of such. maybe TTH will fish up some "facts" that appear to make these decisions reasonable too -- but I'm highly skeptical.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafting is a "relatively non-serious injury." Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Would you like to try to explain why you think my rather general statement refers in any way to a specific case involving third-degree burns?

If you're speaking of the McDonald's case, I don't know much about it so I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. All I remember is that a huge judgment was knocked down to something considered more reasonable. Can't guys like you and Randy4Candy argue a point without ridiculously projecting and intimating that all of us are eager to defend all corporate perpetrators of alleged torts, no matter the facts or circumstances?

Would you like to try to explain why you think my rather general statement refers in any way to a specific case involving third-degree burns?

If you're speaking of the McDonald's case, I don't know much about it so I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. All I remember is that a huge judgment was knocked down to something considered more reasonable. Can't guys like you and Randy4Candy argue a point without ridiculously projecting and intimating that all of us are eager to defend all corporate perpetrators of alleged torts, no matter the facts or circumstances? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Or, you could just go back and look at your words..........

Or, you could just go back and look at your words.......... Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Or maybe you could try to do a better job of comprehending what I wrote.

Want to point out where I said anything about the McDonald's case?

Like I said, it looks like you're a little guilty of projecting and believing whatever you want to believe...

Perhaps you [TTH] are an ethical plaintiffs' lawyer who rejects frivolous junk lawsuits. If so, kudos to you! But if you're intellectually honest, you'll readily admit that many of your brethren are not quite so virtuous. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The same can be said of defense attorneys. There are many defense attorneys who fight cases in which liability is a sure thing (and maybe damages, too), but they do so for the following reasons:

1. On the sheer "chance" that they can win the case, even thought the chances are slim.
2. So they can continue to bill the insurance company or defendant and continue to make money off a case that should be settled.
3. On the chance that the Plaintiff will run out of money or interest in fighting, and basically give up.

I don't call any of these tactics ethical, but they exist nonetheless.

The same can be said of defense attorneys. There are many defense attorneys who fight cases in which liability is a sure thing (and maybe damages, too), but they do so for the following reasons:

1. On the sheer "chance" that they can win the case, even thought the chances are slim.
2. So they can continue to bill the insurance company or defendant and continue to make money off a case that should be settled.
3. On the chance that the Plaintiff will run out of money or interest in fighting, and basically give up.

I don't call any of these tactics ethical, but they exist nonetheless. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

True that!

I'd like to think that most defense attorneys are ethical, but there certainly are exceptions. (My Dad was a defense attorney, although he spent most of his career as a [non-litigating] corporate attorney.)

True that!

I'd like to think that most defense attorneys are ethical, but there certainly are exceptions. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The same can be said for plaintiff's lawyers. The bad ones get all the news. Competence doesn't sell papers.

The same can be said for plaintiff's lawyers. The bad ones get all the news. Competence doesn't sell papers. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Exactly!

You don't hear so much about the competent, sound practitioners who eschew non-meritorious cases. The bad apples get all the press. The sad thing is that they're capable of doing so much damage, not only to society as a whole but to the standing of their own profession in the public's eye.