[dmm]

Originally posted by sachmo:
2. Who would decide what makes a lawsuit rediculous? If anyone were going to make that determination, the jury would be the Last choice on my list.

Currently, the jury decides whether or not a lawsuit is NOT ridiculous. So why not let them also decide that a lawsuit IS ridiculous? It is the same exact system as what we have now, except that it gives the jury a third option. It is also much more fair, since in the current system only the accused has to face the jury -- the accuser has nothing to lose. There are leeches who make a fine living out of accusing one moneyed person/company after another. Sure, they strike out a lot, but they have an endless number of at bats, so eventually they hit a home run.

Originally posted by sachmo:
Besides, I don't think you could ever get this method to be seen as constitutional.

What is unconstitutional about it? It protects the fundamental right of property, a principle included in the Constitution, and which actually predates the Constitution in American thought by several centuries. It also protects the idea of equal justice and equal punishment for all. People should not get free chances to throw darts at you, hoping to find a chink in your armor, just because you are rich. That is unAmerican.

Originally posted by sachmo:
4. In the McDonalds case, it was company policy. So the company was responsible.

It was company policy to give customers what they demanded: piping hot coffee. Now, all because of this one case, all coffee sold in the US is barely hot enough to burn your finger in when you buy it, so it quickly becomes lukewarm. Plus, insurance companies raised their rates for all places that sell coffee, making it more expensive. This is just one, fairly trivial, example of how all of us are suffering from the current tort system. (Correction: almost all of us. Trial lawyers and occasional home-run clients are doing quite well.)

Originally posted by sachmo:
In this country, when you are at work, you represent your company, so they are liable for you actions.

That never used to be a valid argument, it ought not to be, and increasing acceptance of this argument by juries is crippling American business. Should a delivery company get sued because one of its drivers gets drunk and has a bad accident? What if the driver has a heart attack? stroke? seizure? suicide attempt? road rage? playing with the radio? daydreaming? How much should a company monitor all of its employees' actions, both on and off the job? If you give them the responsibility, then you must give them the right. Do you really want corporate America to be Big Brother to all of its employees, continually monitoring you, telling you how to live, what to eat and drink, with instant access to all of your medical, psychiatric, financial, and criminal records? NO? Then don't hold companies responsible for everything their employees do.

Originally posted by sachmo:
Hopefully, reason can still prevail in most cases, but wouldn't most companies start blaming a single employee in this case, allowing them to break laws and then hold the employee responsible? I don't think anyone wants that.

This has nothing to do with my proposal. Companies try to pass the buck now, even when they are clearly at fault. My complaint is that companies get sued even when it is not their fault, just because they have deeper pockets than the at-fault employee, and (this is the key point) there is no risk to the suer to try this tactic.

[ July 22, 2004, 20:47: Message edited by: dmm ]