OT: Bad Mojo

[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 ]

[tesco samoa]

david. If the court determines that it is a wasteful court case... The defendents representation fees are paid for as a fine for waisting the courts time.

Also a lawyer can lose his bar if it is seen that he/she is not up to snuff.

[Narrew]

Atrocities,

GL with your case, are you going to take that person to small claims court to get your money back for defending yourself?

[Randallw]

Originally posted by dmm:
This type of rip-off was featured recently on 60 Minutes. (Non-US FYI: That's a well-respected news show in the US; normally too liberally slanted for my blood, but generally reliable.)

We have 60 minutes in Australia as well. I don't watch it but its fair enough.

Edit: removed a bit of a rant about Australian current affairs programs which on second thought have nothing to do with the topic.

[ July 23, 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[dmm]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
david. If the court determines that it is a wasteful court case... The defendents representation fees are paid for as a fine for waisting the courts time.

Also a lawyer can lose his bar if it is seen that he/she is not up to snuff.

1) Having to pay opponent's court costs is a very small risk compared to the potential payoff. There ought to be at least the possibility of punitive damages for causing the defendant needless pain and suffering. And the accuser's lawyer (and his firm) should be liable as well, since usually the accuser doesn't have a pot to pi$$ in.
2) Lawyers almost NEVER get disbarred, as long as they win occasionally and don't do anything clearly illegal. This is the fox guarding the henhouse.

[Yimboli]

Originally posted by dmm:

quote:

---

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.

---

Why do you think companies go overseas? To get away from unions, minimum wage, and frivolous lawsuits! *sigh*

[ July 23, 2004, 21:14: Message edited by: Yimboli ]

[Narrew]

[quote]Originally posted by Yimboli:

Why do you think companies go overseas? To get away from unions, minimum wage, and frivolous lawsuits! *sigh*

Some of that is true, but most companies go over seas to get away from the double corporate tax.

Bleh, I couldn't explain it good enough so here is a blurb from Boortz

BoortzCorp, U.S. Since BoortzCorp is a U.S. corporation federal tax regulations will require BoortzCorp to pay federal corporate income taxes on every single penny it earns. It doesn't matter whether that money is earned in the U.S. or not. If BoortzCorp earns $15 Million in Belgium it will not only have to pay whatever taxes are due on those earnings in Belgium, but in the United States as well. Now the U.S. tax laws will allow a credit to BoortzCorp in the amount of the taxes paid to Belgium, but since U.S. corporate income taxes are generally higher than most other nations, there will be additional taxes due to Washington. In some enlightened foreign countries there are no corporate income taxes at all. In that case, the U.S. collects the full amount.
BoortzCorp Bermuda. The corporate management of BoortzCorp is getting a bit tired of paying income taxes to the feds on earnings of overseas subsidiaries. BoortzCorp could expand its business and hire additional people if the earnings could be reduced by lowering the tax burden. So BoortzCorp reincorporates in Bermuda. The home office stays in the U.S., as do all but about five employees. But now the tax laws are different. The BoortzCorp subsidiary operating in the United States will pay corporate income taxes to the U.S. government on earnings made in the U.S. The BoortzCorp operation in Belgium, however, will pay income taxes on earnings realized in Belgium, but will owe nothing to the U.S. government for those earnings. That will leave BoortzCorp with additional cash that can be used to hire additional people, expand the business, or pay dividends to shareholders, many of whom, by the way, live in the United States.