Main Menu

Sponsors:

Poll: Loser pays

Started by Ron Wenrich, August 14, 2005, 08:50:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron Wenrich

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dan_Shade

I dunno, looser pays sounds like a good idea until you have a legitimate issue with a large company or somebody with deep pockets, because we all know what happens when you can afford O.J. or Michael Jackson type lawyers.
Woodmizer LT40HDG25 / Stihl 066 alaskan
lots of dull bands and chains

There's a fine line between turning firewood into beautiful things and beautiful things into firewood.

DanG

I'd like to see a losing plaintiff paying at least the defendant's legal fees.  If a suit is deemed to be "frivolous", he should have to pay what he was seeking.
"I don't feel like an old man.  I feel like a young man who has something wrong with him."  Dick Cavett
"Beat not thy sword into a plowshare, rather beat the sword of thine enemy into a plowshare."

DonE911

I'm with DanG, but there would have to be an air tight description of "frivolous"

Engineer

I think there's a really good argument for AND against the concept of a losing party in a lawsuit paying all of the legal fees.   

The argument for it, probably would be cutting down on the number of thoroughly ridiculous lawsuits that occur.   The first one that comes to mind would be that hot cup of coffee at McDonald's that they lost.  Granted, Mickey D's is a big corp with very deep pockets, but read about the details of that one and it's a sad story, and not for the idiot that burned herself.   

The argument against would be that a defendant that is truly at fault, could hire the big-shot law firm, and through the known quirks of the legal system, get off scot free and have the big-shots paid for by the victims.

I think that many lawsuits that pan out nowadays, if you read through the details of the suit, many of the presiding judges in the suit tack on the court costs and legal costs to the award.  One thing that really irritates me, though; and it's a failure of the legal and ethical principles fo the system, is that the legal costs are often a percentage of the award.  That's why the lawyers push for such outrageous settlement amounts - they ask for three million, the victim gets half and the lawyers get half.  The more the merrier.   

Look up the Stella awards - lawsuit results that are just plain wrong - it's named after the woman who dumped the coffee on herself at the McD's drive-through.

Gunny

I had to vote in the "Don't Know" section since "Yes, but with concrete definitions" wasn't available.  How about re-phrasing the query: "Losing legal team/representation pays"?  Or, better yet: "Guilty Party Pays"?  (Whether found "guilty" or not!"--thinking that might nullify the impact of the Johnny Cochran/F. Lee Bailey-types.)

Anyone still believing the "equal representation" fantasy in this country hasn't experienced the "legal" system at work.  All kinds of crooks wander our streets and most I've observed know well that the "system" is on their side as long as they maintain a certain aura of status-quo and have access to vast sums of monies/assets. 

Since when did "losing" a lawsuit mean that you weren't justified in bringing it before the courts?  Also, last I knew, the recipient of any settlement got to pay the tax on the Total amount won, while the legal firm just snagged their lump-sum off the top--before taxes.  Any wonder that lawyers are the first to be hanged, according to the precepts of "The Anarchist's Handbook" (or is it "Cookbook"?)?

BTW: One very good way to eliminate nasty and ratty legal representation is to pursue what is referred to as "Pro Se" action(s).  I've done it with great success in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do it again if necessary.  Our local judicary even supports the "In Pro Per" route, within certain boundaries.

Curlywoods

I would like to see some form of cap put on legal fees based upon dollars the lawsuit is based upon.  The attorneys tend to run up legal bills as they can in my opinion.  That is just wrong. 
  Our legal system is biased towards those with the most money wins.  The one with the most money can cause you to deal with excessive legal bills by asking for incredible amounts of non related issues to the cases and the courts allow them as part of discovery.  Some how this practice needs to be overhauled as many cases never get to the court room as the other party simply runs out of money before their case can be heard!  It is a sad state of affairs in my mind.  Crooks with money will and do rule our country these days.
All the best,

Michael Mastin
McKinney Hardwood Lumber
McKinney, TX

Gunny

AMEN, Michael!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris J

As others have said, there's a plus and a minus to both sides.

I many years of experience procuring records for attorneys.  People often blame the plaintiff attorneys, and sometimes with good reason.  The defense attorneys, however, are the true experts at padding their billing.  It's probably best if I leave it at that.
Certified Amateur Chainsaw Tinkerer.  If sucess is built on failure, then one day I'll live on the top of Mt. Everest.

Left_Coast_Rich

I AM IN  REAL ESTATE SALES ( DAY JOB) AND THINK THAT EACH SIDE SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN TEAM.  THAT WOULD KEEP THE WINNERS IN CHECK AND THE LOOSERS IN CHECK WITH THE REWARDS GOING WHERE THEY SHOULD.  THERE WOULD BE  LESS SUITS ON BOTH SIDES AND THE PRICE OF THE LAND SHARKS WOULD GO DOWN.  AS IT IS NOW, ANY TIME A PERSON WANTS TO SUE, THEY CAN AND NOT GET HIT FOR THE COST OF THE SUIT  CUZ COURT COSTS AND LEGAL FEES SEEM TO BELONG TO THE ONE WITH THE DEEPEST POCKETS.  LC RICH. :'( :'(
I know more today than yesterday less than tomorrow.

jimbo

  it all gos back to the golden rule ---- thoses with the gold wins

                                                                 jimbo

Lenny_M

I`M  with the Dang fellow on this one.Wrong is wrong. pay up.
                                                  Lenny

Arthur

In the UK and Australia its the judges descision.  Normally the loser pays.

The judge also has the ability to limit the payment for costs but normally just issues an order for costs.  As a loser you can then appeal the costs.

Gunny

Looks like the majority vote is that "loser pays."  Let's see how long it takes Merck to cough up that $253,000,000 just awarded the Plaintiff in the Vioxx trial.  Fat chance that gal'll ever see one copper penny.

Fla._Deadheader


My bride was killed by those "Helpful" drugs, Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrex.

  The Attorneys said that I did not have a "strong enough" case ??? >:( >:(
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Gunny

FDH:

Sorry to learn of your loss.  My then-wife was butchered by a so-called "world-renowned expert", which ultimately led to a very lengthy nightmare.  My business partner's wife was killed by a Morphine patch that was administered by one of the deadliest docs in this area.  He's in prison now on others charges and my partner has been advised that no further actions can yield him any further damages. 

Again, I am saddened to know (though it seems to be relatively common) that others have been led down that dreadful trail, too. 

crtreedude

About 8 years ago my health took a nose dive (I had been working like a slave for who knows how many years and the body finally said enough). I went to the doctor and after running some tests, he told me to take the purple pill.

Didn't help a thing and I was getting worse. I started eating right, excercising, etc, etc. and soon I was better than ever - thankfully my wife edits health books so I knew exactly what to do. I still have to be careful since I am not as young as I once was, but I feel really good.

I had stopped taking the medicine and when I saw the doctor and told him (and that I was about 25 lbs lighter) he said, "Oh, that will fix the problem too."

In my opinion, we have to fix the root cause first, and then take the drugs if they are needed. So many of these drugs have some pretty serious side effects. Too often the doctors just want to hand us a pill. Now we have some fool in NH giving her doctor a hard time because he said she was fat. She should have been grateful and started a diet. Now doctors will be even more worried about telling people to excercise and eat right - so they will push even more pills.

Doctors can do some pretty good stuff, but I always want to cure myself as much as possible first. What I find very distrubing is that the young doctors work such awful hours - I can't imagine making decisions effecting someone's health with no sleep.

FDH - you might want to revisit those attorneys - now that one case has been made - it is possible the drug companies will settle. In fact, perhaps contact the attorneys that just won.



So, how did I end up here anyway?

Tobacco Plug

Quote from: Gunny on August 22, 2005, 09:20:57 AM
FDH:

My business partner's wife was killed by a Morphine patch that was administered by one of the deadliest docs in this area.  He's in prison now on others charges and my partner has been advised that no further actions can yield him any further damages. 

Gunny,
My 81 year old mother has started using a morphine patch to help with the pain from her arthritis.  Please tell me more about your business partner's wife's experience.  I want to know as much as possible about the medicines my mother is taking so I can make sure she is doing it right.  She needs the relief from the pain, but I don't want her to get sick from it.  Thanks.
How's everybody doing out in cyberspace?