How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

I read a few days ago on a new page about a group of lawyers who are preparing to file a multi-billion dollar class action, multi-state, multi defendant lawsuit against the Video Game industry for making violent video games that are a threat to society.

I have done a search for the article, but could not fine it. I did find another case though, http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,21...=wn_culthead_8
that talked about a similar case.

What have we come to now? How low will the Trial lawyers go? These folks, no offense, are worse than probate lawyers who suck up an estate like a hoover vacuum until only a crumb or two remain.

These types of frivolous lawsuits must be stopped before they explode into an epidemic. Lets see now, they have sued the Tobacco companies, the fire arm industry, fast food, Microsoft, and now they are gunning for the Video Game industry, alcohol companies, car companies, and cell phone manufactures.

How low will they go?

If lawsuits like this are not stopped, one day I could see Aaron named as a defended for having made SEIV or SEV such an addictive product.

Seriously, 10 years ago people laughed at any one who said they were going to sue the fast food industry for making people fat.

I can understand Tobacco, it is an addictive product designed by the Tobacco companies to be ultra addictive, but video games and fast food?

Oh for crying out loud, take some responsibility for your own choices in life and fire those ambulance chasers!

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Until tort reform (making the plaintiff financially responsible for filing frivolous lawsuits) is enacted, the benefits (lots of easy money quickly) will outweigh the costs (higher prices & insurance rates) in the minds of the people filing these suits. There are too many lawyers spinning a system that makes it too easy to sue for googobs of money.

EDIT - Oh, and BTW... go ahead and tax cigarettes all you want - but lay off my cigars!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ January 28, 2004, 10:32: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

As long as lawyers can work pro bono (I beleive that is the term, were they will take a case and not expect to be paid unless they win) there is no limit to how low some will go. And if they can't work pro bono as I believe is the case in Canada there is no limit as long as they can find poor clients that can get legal aid. My Dad who was a surgeon heard of (or was the target of I think) many frivilas suits and the middle class never sue cause it costs them money.

Edit and re Tobacco. You shouldn't include them in here. those bastards deserve to be sued for every penny they have.

[ January 28, 2004, 10:43: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

How low will they go?
How high is up?

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Pro bono is the correct phrase, DavidG. I know this because I read a lot of John Grisham, who is a lawyer. But AT is right. There is just too much litigation out there, and most of it is frivilous. Some idiot spills hot coffee in their lap and they get thousands (or was it millions?) of dollars. Just because there wasn't a label saying hot coffee in your lap might burn you and the person didn't have enough sense not to know not to put a hot liquid between your legs.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'll tell you who I think, although I seriously doubt the courts would agree. I say the golfer. And I am a golfer myself. As a golfer I think you are responsible to being aware of your limitations.

Many will say an errant shot is a "fluke" and we shouldn't hold the golfer responsible. But I don't agree it's a fluke. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of hitting the ball towards the hole, you should not be taking the risk of cutting too close to the corner or along the edge of the property. Golfers are all perfectly aware of the principle of risk and reward, but we tend to limit our thinking to the "risk" of adding to our score. We don't think about the real risk of damage to others personal property.

If your game isn't up to the level of playing those high risk shots, you play it safe. You aim down the other side of the fairway, you take less club, you don't try to swing out of your own shoes. You decrease the chance of hurting someone, and in all likelyhood you will lower your score to boot. Of course you you eliminate the possibilty of hitting those towering drives that bend over the treeline and land four inches form the cup. But wake up dude, if you could hit shots like that you wouldn't be playing the back 9 at your local muni at 4:45 anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If the course you are playing puts you in too many of these dangerous situiations, you need to find a course with more open space. One that is better suited to your ability level.

And get some lessons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If someone goes to a firing range and doesn't know what the heck they are doing and starts shooting off in totally different directions then the targets, I think we would all agree they bear the responsibility if some poor shmuck gets hit by an "errant" bullet while sitting on his back porch.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Hmmm, as what may be the resident lawyer on this page, I feel I must defend my profession and have the following observations:

1 I do not think the correct phrase is "pro bono". Pro bono means working for free, where you do not expect to be paid. I do pro bono work for certain charities, where I give them a certain amount of advise per year free. There is no payment.

The word you are looking for is "contingent". American attorneys can work on a contingent fee basis ie no win, no fee. Most other jurisdictions contain strong prohibitions or restrictions on accepting contingent fees. We can in England, but the extent and fee uplift are regulated.

2 Please keep you comments restricted to American attorneys. After all, the US has 90% of the world's lawyers, and also has the legal regime which allows the sort of spurious claims against which you are protesting.

Unfortunately, American lawyers give the rest of us a bad name, and I for one am stick of being lumped with them.

3 Also, you need to exclude most commercial lawyers from your statement. In fact, limit your statement to "American litigators" and you are nearer where you want to be.

Corporate lawyers (such as myself) do not deal in transactions that can lead to class suite or frivolous/vexatious claims. We deal in business matters, and save in Enron style cases of fraud, the majority of what we do will not get to court, will not have settlements, and basically is down to sorting out contracts.

American Litigators can, and they do.

4 If you have a problem, lobby your congressmen and CHANGE YOUR LEGAL SYSTEM. The US legal system has become what it is because of what is perceived to be the causation of jurisprudence flowing from the US constitution, and certain landmark "freewill" cases. It is now an inalieable right of free speech in the US for anyone to sue anybody for anything.

This has serious knock on effects. For example, the cost of your healthcare is dramatically increased, because every time you go to hospital with a minor ailment, you have to be tested for pretty much every possible permutation of disease on the planet, because if on the offchance you actually have got the million to one shot case of Growltigga's dribbling bottom virus, and the hospital hasnt picked it up, hey ho, you can sue them for millions and millions of dollars (as if millions and millions of dollars is reasonable compensation) because lordy, they didnt test for absolutely bloody everything - end result? insurance goes up, healthcare goes up - you disclude the defence of reasonable causation which is the bloody fundamental basis of pretty much every other legal system in the world, other than US!

Also explains why the coda franca of the world is English law, rather than any Federal law. New York law is used on quite a few transactions, but its commercial code is rather similar to English law.

The biggest change you should make to your legal system is juries, and having a reality check on the level of damages your juries can award in court.

By way of comparison, here in the UK, a hospital was sued for causing brain damage to a patient. The patient was awarded £2million. This was compared with similar cases in the US and France. In France, the award was £1.8, in the US, $75 million??

You will have lawyers pursuing such cases where they have even the slimmest chance of a slice of such an astomical payout. LAw is a business, just like any other.

5 Finally, Atrocities and other posters, I am always happy to see any form of comment, but may be you should think harder about who or what you are insulting before you make blanket statements. I am a lawyer, I dont like people making sideswipes based on what a bunch of unregulated tosspots in a different jurisdiction are doing. If you want to slate them, keep it to American lawyers, and dont try and bring the rest of the world into the insult.

Also, next time you have an accident at work, or are hit by a car, or are getting divorced, or are assaulted in the street, who on earth do you think will be the person you turn to to sort out your problems?

Apologies for the rambling, but I need to type this quickly before I go off and throw another single mother out on the street for not paying her TV licence!

[ January 28, 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: Growltigger ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

My apologies. Of course I was referring to American ambulance chasers, not English solicitors who throw single moms out on the street. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif What's a tv license, btw?

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Well Gt, I think specifically mentioning in all our Posts that we are refering to American Lawyers is quite redundant and uneccesary. Assuming that you are correct, as you usually are, that 90% of the worlds lawyers are of the American variety; practically all the objectionable offenses commited by lawyers are done so my American Lawyers, which appears to be your assumption; assuming that the majority of the posters on this forum are American, a fact not much in dispute I believe, and that the majority of Americans, and consequently a majority of the American posters on this forum, are basically uneducated about life and circumstances outside of our own country, another fact I highly doubt you will dispute, I think that one can reasonably assume, since you profess to admire the principle of reasonableness, that any negative comments made by posters on this forum are in regards to American Lawyers, unless otherwise specifically noted.

Geo

[ January 28, 2004, 14:33: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What about your cars and personal property?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've consistently voted against the car/personal property tax in Virginia. If the politicos can't live within the income taxes I already pay to them, that's their problem.

[ January 28, 2004, 14:44: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Well Geo old chap, I am slightly incorrect in my statement that 90% of the world's lawyers are American. In fact, I believe the figure is closer to 92%.

I would not have the temerity to say that practically all of the objectionable offences commited by lawyers are done so by American lawyers, as that would be arrogance, and would not take into account that the other legal systems of the World do have their own right royal cock-ups. Human rights cases in quite a lot of the Eastern hemisphere spring to mind.

That being said, the matters being complained of here, eg sueing the fast food industry for making people fat, sueing the video game industry for causing people to be violent (a nice one in a country that let's people freely have automatic and assualt weaponry!!), are particular to the US legal system.

But, this is not a pure American forum. So any generic statement that lawyers are the scum of the earth and the lowest of the low, by its very necessity is a remark which equally applies to lawyers from all the other countries represented here on the forum, England, Germany, Australia etc., and that is what I dislike.

I am fed up with being tarred with the same brush which is applied to what I can only describe as misconceived spurious money grabbing claims brought by profiteering types which unfortunately, make regular headlines in the US.

Let's look at what the majority of lawyers throughout the world do. You can split them into two generic types, corporate lawyers and private lawyers. This is further split into contentious and non-contentious work.

Non contentious Corporate lawyers deal with companies, whether it be employment, pensions, corporate, mergers and acquisition advice or whatever. We deal with corporates, we act for corporates in doing things that corporates do. I am not aware of too many headline cases where non contentious corporate lawyers have shocked the world with the daftness of what they are doing.

Non contentious private lawyers deal with people. When you buy your house, when you get divorced, when you want to make a will etc basically, when you have problems, you turn to these people to help you. Keep in mind that for most people, they only deal with lawyers when there are problems in their lives, so it is fair to say (and I accept) that we get tarnished with being only around when the fecal matter hits the rotary air impeller.

Now, we turn to contentious lawyers. These are the litigators, which make up a sizable chunk of the American legal fraternity (I believe more as a percentage than other jurisdictions). These are your contingent fee chappies, these are the people who sue McDonalds cos their food makes you fat, these are the people who sue hospitals cos they didnt test you for Growltigga's dribbling backside syndrome.

Contentious lawyers are everywhere, but the cases which make the headlines are those in the US. And this is not because the US has more legal cases per capita than anywhere else, it doesnt. They make the headlines for 2 reasons - (1) the US legal system allows claims like this, which pretty much any other jurisdiction would chuck out for abuse of process and (2) the jury based system of damages means the awards granted in US courts are, by comparison with the rest of the world, absolutely unbeleivable (I remember one case where a neighbour reversed his car over the foot of his neighbour, and broke two of his toes - that neighbour was awarded $950,000 in damages - where the hell is the justification in that, how do you prove that injury is worth that amount?)

I resent being associated with that.

Fine, in your opinion I may be being unduly sensitive, but I dont think so. Perhaps Atrocites should have entitled this thread "How low will lawyers in the US go" - that would be more accurate.

The same would apply if I started a post saying "are all people employed in IT a bunch of dreming overpaid tosspots?" - I would be insulting everybody in the industry, and not just the people say on the help desk at Microsoft who I really meant. A defence of saying "Hey, we are mainly Americans so therefore we only mean America is a bit egocentrical" in my opinion, unless this thread is only meant to be for Americans and the rest of us dont have an invite.

I do beleive in reasonableness, and yes, it can strongly be argued that since Atrocities is a US citizen, he is only talking about US lawyers, but it is dangerous to leverage generic statements such as "lawyers are scumbags" on the back of that interpretation.

Finally, I wouldn't dream comment on whether or not the majority of Americans are basically uneducated about life and circumstances out the US. I haven't really met enough to know whether this is a fair statement or not. Some certainly are, but then so are a lot of British who wont go abroad because of the greasy food, funny people and heathen language. I do not think America has a monopoly on introverted types.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On the contrary, I would never hold such an uncooth and jingoistic opinion. One of the values of this forum is that it exposes us to varying opinons and cultures. I totally respect all the differing points of view here and invite all to participate. I am merely of the opinon that trying to be overly careful about every single word doesn't really help the flow of ideas all that much. Perhaps in areas where it is reasonable that someone could misunderstand. But since he specifically mentioned the cases he takes offense at, i.e. the recent slew of big ticket product liability class action lawsuits, I don't think your case for taking offense is all that strong. I don't think a reasonable person would think Atrocities is in any way besmirtching the reputation of your esteemed collegue in Bangladesh drawing up real estate contracts. He's doing a bang up job, we are all sure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Besides, "How low will the contentious private US lawyers go?" as a thread topic may be more precise and a tad less offensive, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tounge, wot? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Just 2 cents....

The truth (as usual) is somewhere there in the middle. Yes lawyers help us (common citizens) out of many legal issues that we are not capable or trained to deal with. And of that we pay you handsomely. However there is almost a "circle" of people that set up the legal system to begin with. When you can't do ANYTHING in court without a lawyer, it almost seems like a legalized form of racketeering (at least to us common folk who don't know the legal system).

So please don't try to argue that lawyers are the upstanding citizens that are wrongly persecuted when in fact the whole legal system in general very close to an "exclusive club". Remember the legal system dictates how virtually every other entity (private citizen, company, etc.) conducts its affairs.

This is just my opinion but also please remember that the majority of folks are NOT lawyers; American or otherwise and so we're not privy to all of the resources at YOUR disposal. To get at those we MUST go through you....

And yes, I did IT work for a Supreme COurt system and I do understand how judges and lawyers (and others in the system) are socially connected as well as professionally.

[ January 28, 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: rdouglass ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

"Bang Up" job? hmmmm, I believe this is one of the cases where we prove that Americans and British are divided by a common language (as well as dietary habits, big hair on women, dodgy TV and flatulence) - I am not sure what that phrase means in the US, but I would not repeat in polite company (and here I am giving you all the benefit of the doubt)what it means in England, or at least my part of it.

Geo, we are not merely in the situation where one is trying to be overly careful about every single word to avoid any suppression of the flow of ideas, we are talking about the rightness or wrongness of making generic statements, expecially when they post up as topic titles on threads.

My case for taking offense is this, I am a lawyer, I saw that thread title and post, I was offended. Be thankful I am not reaching for my attorneys there in the USA and demanding they bring a claim for $10million against Atrocities (and vicariously you as moderator and Shrapnel as forum host) for libel!

The only reason I am not doing that if cos I dont think you lot are good for the cash http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

As moderator, I demand you change the thread title to "How long will litigious and unscrupulous American qualified attorneys practicing both contentious Federal and State law go" immediately.

I also demand you formally reprimand Atrocities in writing and in triplicate for his willful and hurtful attack on the worldwide legal community.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I spent a weekend in England in 1994. Won a radio contest, and went to the Reading Festival, which is a musical festival starring a whole bunch of bands. I'll admit, even though I was kind of tempted, I just stuck to eating foods I was familiar with. Ate at the McDonalds and a couple of other American fast foods joints over there in London. Took getting used to warm tea. I like my tea cold. Don't drink, so I can't comment on warm beer. I won't say it was a complete culture shock. My ancestry is British, and I do like watching some of the british shows on PBS. But it was definitely different than what I was used to. I did love the Underground. First time on a subway. I wish I could have stayed longer. I really enjoyed my stay over there.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

I am no lawyer, but an engineer with (hopefully) some general sence. The main difference in US courts and other countries courts is propably this: In US the huge monetary payment is considered as punishment in general. In many other countries (like here in Finland) the punishment and reparation of the damage are separate things.

For example: You burn a car of your annoying neighbour. In Finland, you get into jail (punishment) for 30 days for it and you pay the prize of a car for victim (reparation). It is not possible to have 1M euros as reparation if the car was not worth it.

However, this does not prevent people to sue other people for these ridiculous claims, but luckily this "american way" has not spread here yet. Also, I do not say the our legal system is better than in US, just that some aspects are better so that people can not take advantage of it in the expense of other people. Also I think that legal systems in US and Finland are so different that it would be difficult to compare. With respect to everyone, Karibu.

[edit]: I hope that no consultant will sue me for my sig http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[ January 28, 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: Karibu ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe the same applies to pretty much every trade or profession. I could say the same about plumbers, boiler repairmen, carpenters, electricians, surveyors, and in fact, just about anybody who has a service or skill which you personally dont possess. I know that my plumber for example makes me look cheap!

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is not correct. The legal system of pretty much every country in the World has developed over the past centuries from either the common law (based on Mediaval dicta) or the civil law (based on Napoleon) systems. In almost all other cases, a countries legal system has been borrowed from a colonial power. Laws have developed, not been established by a bunch of blokes saying, hey ho, we want lots of cash, let's do something to give us a job for life.

You can go to court without a lawyer. You can bring your own action, you can defend yourself. You simply need to get a textbook and understand the court procedural rules.In the US, you have the equivalent of our small claims court where you are encouraged, not to use lawyers. This applies from every court from your local town court, to the Supreme Court.

You dont need lawyers to go to court. That is your right. Lawyers are there if you want assistance in going to court.

As for legalised form of racketeering, anyone can be a lawyer if they take the exams, just as anyone can be a plumber if they do the course.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Rdouglass, this really is a hugely generic statement. My argument certianly was not that lawyers are upstanding citizens that are wrongly accused, but that it is unfair to generically criticize all lawyers whereever they may be for the faults of one particular type of lawyer in one particular country.

As for the legal system being an "exclusive club", I just dont see that.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not privy to the art of IT, I do not understand plumbing, I am not a very good electrician, in order to obtain these services, I need to go through the appropriately ualified person, and utilise the resources at their disposal. Why should lawyers be any different. We are specialists in our respective fields, and it is that expertise that is the one commodity that we have to sell. What you appear to be suggesting is a denial of my right to make a living as a lawyer.

As to the remark on social connections, it may be different in the US but the old boys network is not exclusive to the legal community, and applies at all levels of business. I think it is unfair to say that we have some private club going, it is just not the case.

Just my 3.2 cents worth

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of that Gt you are most definetly correct. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How about as a compromise we just cane him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is a rational argument Gt, however there is a difference. At least a perceived difference, whether it is valid or not I will not attmept to say.

Like the plumber, electrician, IT person, etc. the lawyer is providing a skilled service. The percieved difference however is that the service the layers provide is only required because of the exsistance of other lawyers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I need a plumber because I want running water to my loo and don't wish to freeze my bum going to the trees behind my house in at 6 in the morning.

The cynical view of lawyers on the other hand is that their purpose for exsistance can be boiled down to two basic purposes. To get something for myself that belongs to someone else, and to keep something of my own that someone elses lawyer is trying to get for him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

You could say that lawyers would be unneccesary if I would simply be happy with what is mine, and if everybody else were happy with what is theirs. On the other hand, there is no malicious intent behind my pipes freezing on a cold day. And if I don't have the skill to repair them myself, I need someone who does. I can't eliminate my need for a plumber by convincing everyone else they don't need a plumber.

I realize that lawyers believe they serve an important function in defense of the powerless against the powerful. But the cynic will reply that the powerful only allow the laywers to do what they allow them to do. That the defense the lawyer provides is merely an illusion the powerful allows the powerless to enjoy. The only thing the powerful really fears is that the powerless will lose the illusion that there really is anything protecting them other then the powerful's promise to "follow the rule of law". Because losing that illusion results in anarchy, and anarchy is the only thing that can truely cause the powerful to lose his power. He needs to maintain order, and to do that the powerless must be allowed either hope or fear. And while fear is effective for a time, it is inefficent and a poor motivator for the long term.

Of course, that's just the cynical view. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of that Gt you are most definetly correct. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [/QB][/quote]

Suspected as much, but then I could subsequently bring an action for non-payment of settlement, charge whopping great default interest on the debt and re-sue you for not paying my first award.

Yippee, Geo, Shrapnel and Atrocities and all their offspring for subsequent generations enslaved to Clan Growltigga. I could start an empire.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">]How about as a compromise we just cane him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [/QB][/quote]

Ooh, yes please, and can we use bamboo, for the extra pain that little bendiness gives you? and can we rub it down with a rasping file, so that he gets splinters in his backside when we cane him, and ooh ooh ooh, can we tie him over a barrel as I find that downward swipe of the bamboo in a vertical trajectory just gives us that extra bonus bit of agony...

Yeah, bugger juries and awards, let's just cane people for minor misdemeanours

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

i'm gonna sue this thread for meandering aimlessly.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

im giving the lawyer the benefit of the doubt...

ie, this is so clearly ridiculous that he MUST have intended the whole sordid affair to expose the stupidity of the current patent system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

if he's serious, then... hell, he's worse than mcbride ;P

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Hi Shrek!
I must say that I didn't feel insulted by the thread but what Growltigger is saying is nearly the same I'm feeling about this matter (small wonder if you read my profile). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Many of the things people get upset about are results of the US law system that are just alien to the German law. There is no punitive damage in German civil law whatsoever so forget about cashing in millions in Germany. You "only" get your damage compensated and you have to prove what damage you actually have. A well, I will stop whining about it, Growltigger said it a lot better then I can do in English. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

IMO, one of the biggest problems with the US legal system is the concept that "pain and suffering" are worth monetary damages.

Another big problem is people not taking personal responsibility for their own actions; that spreads far beyond the legal system.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Mephisto:

I've seen your profile before, paramedic and lawyer...

Too bad you aren't in the US, because that could be a great way to meet new clients. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Until tort reform (making the plaintiff financially responsible for filing frivolous lawsuits) is enacted, the benefits (lots of easy money quickly) will outweigh the costs (higher prices & insurance rates) in the minds of the people filing these suits. There are too many lawyers spinning a system that makes it too easy to sue for googobs of money.

EDIT - Oh, and BTW... go ahead and tax cigarettes all you want - but lay off my cigars!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What about your cars and personal property?

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Q: Who in the (USA) is responsible... Golfer, Golf Course, or County?

A (USA) golfer hits a ball over a high fence and it hits a car and that car causes an accident (In the country of the first part).

The golf course claims grandfather rights of operation. They were here first and had plenty of buffer land, until the county condemed a corner of it and placed the 4 lane there. Further more, they have complied with the law by building the fence at great expense.

The county claims it is not responsible for the actions of other people or for foriegn objects entering the roadway. Also, the fence is areasonable precaution required by the law.

well...

The (USA contingency) lawyers think about...
they investigate a little deeper...
and sue the one with the deepest pockets.


EDIT: Added ( ) bold comments, OK GT?

[ January 28, 2004, 15:54: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

The problem with these ambulance chasers now is that when people are really hurt in an accident, they lose in court.

You cannot tell a jury you are suing an insurance company.

You cannot tell a jury you are suing because you have no income and need your medical cost covered that have gone beyond PIP.

The Insurance Company can utterly destroy your credibility because you did not go see a doctor, or failed to keep an appointment, taking comments made to medical staff out of context, and editing video depositions so they "fit" the insurance companies lie.

They can do this because you are powerless, by court order and law, from telling the whole story. That you did not go to the doctor because your PIP coverage had maxed out and any more medication or doctors visits were your responsibility to pay for.

The laws work both ways, they are designed to make truth subjective. Which ever lawyer can present the best "show" wins.

Tabbacoo companies are the lowest form of life on earth and what they did to make Tobacco more addictive was out of pure evil. The Trial lawyers just cashed in on it.

I agree that tort reform is needed, but when law is subject to preseved truth, then justice is no longer blind. An inocent man can be convicted for a crime he did not commit because of subjective turth.

A man seriously injured in a car accident looses his case in court because the Insurance Lawyers have all the laws in there favor. BIG MONEY buys the laws.

I believe that our jury system is broken, and I know that our crimial and civil law systems are utterly bog down in BS.

If a person if tried for a crime, and they are found inocent, or aquitted, then the State should pay for there financial losses incurred as a result of the trial.

To many times to many people have lost everything they own to lawyers and court cost for utterly BS reasons.

As long as we continue to accept our system of justice as is, we will continue to see more and more abuses of the system for those who can afford the price of justice.

Simply put, how much justice are you willing to pay for? In the case of trial lawyers, a lot because the pay off is even bigger.

[ January 29, 2004, 02:13: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

yeah, but people do scam the court's by faking injuries and finding a docter to back them up.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Atrocities and Narf, I cannot comment on the insurance company/medical issues you are talking about as I know very little about this aspect of the US legal system, and what I do know annoys me. I'll leave it to you chaps to discuss the situation.

Mephisto, me old sauerkraut and bratwurst munching, bitburger swilling teutonic chum, long time no currywurst, how are you doing?

I suggest we leave this topic to a US discussion about their jury trial system.

Mephisto and myself, on behalf of the non-US legal community, have made our position clear. We look on from the outside and think the US systems needs reform rather badly.

IMHO, the first step would be to stop with the blame=damages concept, and divorce the concept of damages=compensation. As long as your legal system allows these speculative cases, it is going to be abused by unscrupulous professionals and people out to make a fast buck. Simple as that.

My personal view? ditch the right of the jury to set what compensation is. Set up two clear criteria, "punishment" and "damages". Punishment is at the discretion of the court, and should not be financial. "Damages" need to be proved, and be realistic to what actually has occurred. You smash my car up with a baseball bat? your punishment is a custodial sentence or a fine, damages equal the cost to me of replacing or repairing my car, not several million dollars (which you probably cant pay anyhow) for my feelings!

Atrocities and Geo, please let me have your full names, social security numbers and residential addresses so that I can instruct my US lawyers (the eminent firm of Robbem, Screwem and Scarper)to issue libel proceedings against the pair of you

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe the same applies to pretty much every trade or profession. I could say the same about plumbers, boiler repairmen, carpenters, electricians, surveyors, </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">AY CARUMBA! Your lumping surveyors in the same pay class as lawyers? As a surveyor Now I'm offended. (No not really http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) Surveyors are not a rich bunch. (of course I aslo know that the term 'surveyor' has a completely different meaning in the UK)

And if AT is gonna change the name of this thread don't be putting in 'American' We have the same kind of crap going on in Canada. The only thing wrong with the name is the term "THE Lawyers" instead of "Some lawyers" One of my best friends is a lawyer and he's a great guy as are I expect 90% of the rest. Unfortunately it's that other 10% (some would say higher, maybe lower) giving the rest a bad name.

I would, however, say the real problem is the judges who award the ridiculous claims. ie giving a guy $600,000 for an accident he was involved in while drunk.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

DavidG, dunno what surveyors earn but before I met the current Mrs GT, I did go out with a rather nice young surveyor who had a very nice sports car, an expensive flat and cash to burn, as well as rather nice legs.

There is an office of surveyors next to me, and they all seem to drive rather expensive cars!

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

It's unfortunate that some politicians and radio pundits have been able to shift the discussion to blame the trial lawyers instead of focusing on companies that act recklessly or criminally while at the same time not insisting that these companies at least be forced to act responsibly.

The whole point of punitive damages (which some here have mistaken as "pain and suffering") is to punish companies for reckless and criminal behavior. Not as some have claimed as a form of a lottery. An analogy would be the speeding ticket. If the fine for a speeding ticket is only $5 you probably would not stop speeding. If it's $100s of dollars is all of a sudden makes you stop and think. Also - you can't throw a company in jail, but you can cause it to pay large sums of money.

The poster child for frivolous lawsuits is McDonald's. What you hear on the radio is that this woman should have known coffee was hot.

What you don't hear about is that McD's to save a couple of pennies on each coffee sold was serving coffee that was needlessly too hot in cups that were notorious for loosing their lid. This woman was not the first to have complained and McD's purposely ignored and dismissed any complaints. In fact McD's didn't even offer an apology or any medical compensation they just hoped the woman would go away. The woman had to go through months of therapy because of these burns. If I had been in that woman's place I would have been mad and you probably would have been too.

The only way to force them to change this reckless practice was through a lawsuit. Tom Delay or Rush Limbaugh sure would not have done anything about it.

A good example of a company that did act responibly is Odwalla and they never paid punitive damages because they acted as a company should. You all can look it up if you are interested.

Anyway - I would suggest that most if not all high punitive damage awards are the result of companies not only producing faulty products but also covering them up to continue to make profits.

I don't know about you but if someone I loved died or suffered extreme harm because of a company's malfeasance I think that company should be held accountable.

Now anyone who thinks that a company should not be held accountable when they knowingly cause extreme harm or death please speak up.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

IMHO it is still the women’s fault. Anyone can feel from the outside of the cup of coffee that it is hot. It is not the fault of MD that she put it into her lap on way or the other no matter how hot it was. If you drive to fast on the highway it is you that is responsible and not the car company because it build a fast car.

If the company sells malfunctioning products to the public and people suffer from it, the solution is simple (at least over here): The company pays for the damage it caused (and to some extend for physical pain, but seldom more then 20k €). As a punitive, we get the heads of the people responsible that such a product entered the market, be it on purpose or negligence. They will go to jail for it and no legal construct will help them.
Result: The consumer gets his damage replaced and the responsible person will get his punishment. I see absolutely no need to punish the company and all the honest people working for it by enforcing punitive damage on the company when the few people that are responsible can be punished directly. Just my 0.02$

@Growltigger: It going fine over here, a lot of work at the moment as I have completed all my tests and exams in November Last year. I have sworn my oath in January and I’m now a lawyer in all respects of the German law. I got lucky and got a job immediately despite the high unemployment rate here in Germany. Only my free time has suffered in the process. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

However it is probably the fault of the company if you hurt yourself because their car requires only the slightest touch on the accelerator to go to full speed.

Similarly, the coffee in that case can be best described as way too hot. Coffee should not cause third-degree burns..

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, coffee is served hot by definition, isn't it? When I order a meal it has to be hot and I just fail to see why the company has to sell you a meal that is exactly at the point where it is hot, but not already to cold for the majority of people to enjoy the meal but not hot enough to cause third-degree burns if you spill it over yourself either.
I order hot food, not something to put on my skin safely!
It's a little bit like asking for inflammable fuel in case you spill it over yourself at the gas station while smoking...

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Rex I thought we were talking about frivolous lawsuits not ones against companies that act recklessly and criminally? It costs you money to defend yourself against a frivolous lawsuit (even one you win) while at the same time the lawyer on the otherside is making money. And that ain't right. Now at this point someone is thinking 'well why not just counter sue'? Well when you are sued by some unemployed bum with $5 in his pocket who got legal aid, who are you going to sue? (that's the way things can and do work here in Canada)

Re the McD's case

A legal system that relies on morons who put steaming cups of hot coffee between their legs while driving to punish their reckless and criminal mega corporations is deeply deeply flawed. If McD's was knowingly using E-coli tainted beef in their burgers (cooking kills that right? so hey what's the harm) would you not expect lawmakers to do something about it?

Re: hot coffee causeing 3rd degree burns.

Coffee is made from boiling water. Water boils at 100 degrees C. I think it is quite resonable to assume that coffee may be this hot. IT certainly is if you pour a cup of black coffee at home. But I'll admit maybe McD's was negligent since they had been apparantly warned many times that this was dangerous (only to extremely dim people but still, I guess we got to protect them too), however the punishment should be as Mephisto said. Somewhere in the McD's corporation there is a guy that decided 'coffee must be served this hot, no exceptions' and ignore all the complaints. Find this guy and give him a little jail time.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

It wasn't just that the coffee was too hot. Although they did sell coffee that was hotter than normal so that they could keep it around longer.

They were also providing coffee cups with lids that had a huge tendency to come off. This might not sound like a big deal, but they were selling them at a drive through. Which is not good if the coffee you sell has a tendency too cause major burns.

I might add that the women's lawsuit was not in a vaccuum other people had complained about these issues and McD's had chosen to ignore them.

Anyway - might point wasn't to debate the merits of this particular lawsuit I was just trying to point out that sometimes the only way to change a corporation's bad behavior is through litigation and that if a company acts reponsibly they will avoid these big legal challenges.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yea things are a little different here. :-) UK surveyors are guys that examine your house before you buy it right? looking for dry rot and whatnot? Here we just dig around in the dirt and set metal bars on property corners. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

according to past Posts when the subject was Last brought up: normal coffee - 140'F Mcdonalds coffee in that incident - 180'F.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">good point, and the way i think it should work to.

[ January 29, 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are absolutely right, but the rhetoric from politicians equates frivolous lawsuits done by ambulance chasers with people sueing ford for knowingly selling SUVs that roll and kill people.

Anyway our legal system isn't set up to prosecute someone for a crime that isn't in the books. I don't know how it is in Germany - but here you would have to show criminal intent to prosecute in the criminal courts - the coffee guy wasn't commiting a crime so there would absolutely be know way to prosecute him.

That's why you go after the profits - because that's the only recourse we have as an average citizen.

[ January 29, 2004, 22:28: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

In Germany the state attorney could accuse the MD manager of "physical injury by negligence".
If the manager was required to know that it coffee was extremely hot and that the cups tend to fall over but never bothered to check, it would have been negligence. Nevertheless the intervention of a third person, in this case the victim, would probably stopped the case as it is also negligence to not put your cup on a secure surface/not drinking hot coffee while driving. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Quite honestly the merits of this particular case wasn't meant to be the focus of my post - I was just trying to point out that what pundits might consider a "frivolous" lawsuit at its surface might actually have some merit once you scratch the surface and that taking away a citizen's right to sue a corporation is not a good thing.

Anyway - here is an interesting article from the wall street journal about the McD's case.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

People can draw their own conclusions.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Ok, I see. Of course it is your good right to sue a company or person that did you harm and it should be possible to do so for the rich and poor alike. But the possibility to earn such big sums of money opens up a can of worms. People will sue you because if they win they are rich. It’s a bit like a lottery – in most cases you lose bit if you win, you win big time.
Personally I think that the responsibility of companies for its customers is taken much to far if you demand that they should protect you from every possible error you could possibly do with their products.
The sentence “He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible” really made me wonder. So what do most people think what will happen if they spill hot fluids over themselves?
Well, I think I will let the case rest. You know my feelings about this and I’m not on a crusade to make you feel the same way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Mephisto, congrats on your job, hope you find real life law to be as much fun as learning it!!

My spin on this is that yes, of course companies need to be able to be sued as much as anyone else, and personally, I think company directors should be capable of being got at for their company's misdemeanors, but I agree with Mephisto.

Just because the defendant is a company, they should not have to pay inflated damages because of that. Damages need to be realistic and rational.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

Yes, the high damage awards can be considered punishment, and possibly an attitude correction.

Typically not everyone hurt is going to sue, so a few reasonable awards will not cause a change of behavior.

Unfortunitly, these large awards have created a circus and lottery atmosphere.

I say, let's take some of the reward out of the large awards. Donate the bulk of it to charities.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

When I first heard of the McD's case I had the same reaction as everyone else. Then after reading details i thought McD's was in the wrong. Now I'm not so sure.
Why shouldn't McD's be able to sell hot coffee? Many people like hot coffee. I think that when I pour boiling water into a cup at home it's likely hotter than McD's coffee. The idea that companies cannot sell products that are potentially dangerous is ridiculous. When I cut of my hand with a saw (one with a higher RPM than normal saws) or shoot myself with a gun (wich deadlier that average ammo) can I sue the maker of the saw or gun? Likely not. The reason would probably be something like it is self evident that these products can hurt you. Same should be true of hot coffee.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Coffee should be made with hot water. The hotter, the better. Boil, then brew. So coffee can never be too hot, because hotter than boiling is steam, not coffee. If everyone only gets lukewarm coffee now because nobody wants to be sued when some idiot cannot handle it with care, you get what you deserve. Thats how I would solve the issue as shop owner. Anything else would be a too high risk - because taking the utmost possible stupidity as what I have to care for as vendor, I would otherwise risk that someone sues me next time when he slices the cup open with a knife and burns himself.

I do not agree with the lid issue. Who really expects that the lid of a cheap pLastic pot is 100% safe and tight, regardless of how rough it is handled? It is something to avoid spillage when transported, not something to enable people to drink while the cup is upside down. I think, a minimum of care when handling hot beverages should be expected - and handling hot coffee while driving is not what courts should encourage.

Re: How Low Will The Lawyers Go?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not so sure the lid was an issue in this case. If you read Rex's link you will note that the women was removing the lid when she spilled it. But yea I agree with you.