How Low Will The Lawyers Go?

[Atrocities]

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!

[General Woundwort]

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

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!!!

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

[DavidG]

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 ]

[Gryphin]

How low will they go?
How high is up?

[gregebowman]

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.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Wardad:
Q: Who is responsible... Golfer, Golf Course, or County?

A golfer hits a ball over a high fence and it hits a car and that car causes an accident.

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.

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.

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.

[Growltigger]

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 ]

[gregebowman]

My apologies. Of course I was referring to American ambulance chasers, not English solicitors who throw single moms out on the street. What's a tv license, btw?

[geoschmo]

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 ]

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
EDIT - Oh, and BTW... go ahead and tax cigarettes all you want - but lay off my cigars!!!

What about your cars and personal property?

---

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 ]