Author Topic: Legal System, working as intended. (Read 8281 times)

makattak · « **on:** August 29, 2011, 10:46:08 AM »

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52469658-68/garrity-card-court-lawsuit.html.csp?page=1

Children suing their mother for "bad parenting" because she didn't send a check with a birthday card and didn't want to spend as much on a party dress as her daughter (I assume daughter, maybe her son wanted a pretty party dress) wanted to spend.

Oh, and they are being represented by their lawyer father against his divorced wife.

Not, it was dismissed, but that doesn't mean the mother isn't out a significant amount of money paying for her lawyer.

Yep, nothing wrong with a legal system that lawyers can use as a weapon of revenge against others. No need for loser pays laws at all.

Ned Hamford · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2011, 01:24:18 PM »

If the case were as frivolous as the paper presents it there are rules in place for frivolous lawsuits. The plaintiff can be made to pay and the lawyer can face sanctions and even disbarment.

What I think is more likely is that the paper has cherry picked comments to hype the story.

My favorite example of that is the woman suing for spilling coffee on herself... excluding that the coffee show had been cited numerous times for healthcode violations as it was super heated [I think jury rigged to be so that they could pre-prepare the sealed coffee cups for busier times], that the women needed skin grafts, and that her award was overturned. Hot Coffee is one thing, superheated is another. Superheated is when a liquid is over the boiling point but due to compression is still a liquid, often causing explosions. Slight jostle of the sealed coffee cup... Steam burns are nasty.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2011, 02:35:23 PM »

Quote from: Ned Hamford on August 29, 2011, 01:24:18 PM

If the case were as frivolous as the paper presents it there are rules in place for frivolous lawsuits. The plaintiff can be made to pay and the lawyer can face sanctions and even disbarment.

What I think is more likely is that the paper has cherry picked comments to hype the story.

My favorite example of that is the woman suing for spilling coffee on herself... excluding that the coffee show had been cited numerous times for healthcode violations as it was super heated [I think jury rigged to be so that they could pre-prepare the sealed coffee cups for busier times], that the women needed skin grafts, and that her award was overturned. Hot Coffee is one thing, superheated is another. Superheated is when a liquid is over the boiling point but due to compression is still a liquid, often causing explosions. Slight jostle of the sealed coffee cup... Steam burns are nasty.

Superheated coffee? Certainly not Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, which is the famous "Woman Spilling Coffee on Herself" case. I would like to read more about the superheated coffee case.

Ned Hamford · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2011, 04:14:28 PM »

I think that is the case. Lead attorney spoke at my school. Things are alot different between the plaintiff and the defense attorney. That page seems to reflect the multibillion dollar corp's position rather than the 70 some year old woman.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2011, 04:34:22 PM »

how do you imagine they kept the liquid under compression?

Things are alot different between the plaintiff and the defense attorney

yea..... a lot

http://www.slip-and-sue.com/the-famous-infamous-mcdonalds-coffee-spill-lawsuit-revisited/

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2011, 05:07:22 PM »

The system is sick. The only way to fix it is loser-pays. File a junk suit and lose or it gets dismissed? You pay court and lawyer fees for the other person. That would dry up the bottomless pit of bullshit lawsuits.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #6 on:** August 29, 2011, 05:10:17 PM »

downside is it would further tilt the scales to favor wealth over right. and its pretty tilted now

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2011, 05:14:50 PM »

Quote from: Ned Hamford on August 29, 2011, 04:14:28 PM

I think that is the case. Lead attorney spoke at my school. Things are alot different between the plaintiff and the defense attorney. That page seems to reflect the multibillion dollar corp's position rather than the 70 some year old woman.

In that case it is pretty obvious the attorney was intentionally misusing the term "superheated" to represent any hold temperature over the recommended industry norm as an inflammatory tactic.

Brad

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #8 on:** August 29, 2011, 05:15:26 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 29, 2011, 05:10:17 PM

downside is it would further tilt the scales to favor wealth over right. and its pretty tilted now

This. It would discourage people from suing, for example, big corporations when they have anything less than 100% guaranteed win.

roo_ster · « **Reply #9 on:** August 29, 2011, 05:31:58 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 29, 2011, 05:10:17 PM

downside is it would further tilt the scales to favor wealth over right. and its pretty tilted now

Poor folks with marginal cases can't be assured of getting a lawyer to argue for them outside a Hollywood movie, nowadays, anyway. Don't see that reality changing, no matter the system.

What this would do is make the industrial/assembly line tort lawyers go back to being lawyers, rather than mass lawsuit production managers.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #10 on:** August 29, 2011, 05:33:59 PM »

if we could realistically expect land sharks to police themselves we wouldn't be having this discussion. i think a return to the code duello would help

Ned Hamford · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:37:02 PM »

Quote from: Brad Johnson on August 29, 2011, 05:14:50 PM

In that case it is pretty obvious the attorney was intentionally misusing the term "superheated" to represent any hold temperature over the recommended industry norm as an inflammatory tactic.

Brad

I've just got alot of faith in those heavy foam cups

De Selby · « **Reply #12 on:** August 29, 2011, 07:51:03 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on August 29, 2011, 05:07:22 PM

The system is sick. The only way to fix it is loser-pays. File a junk suit and lose or it gets dismissed? You pay court and lawyer fees for the other person. That would dry up the bottomless pit of bull*expletive deleted* lawsuits.

The biggest loser in loser pays is you, the taxpayer. Massive corporations that can afford the risk litigate and appeal everything, knowing that they'll either recover their legal costs, force the other guy to drop the suit in exchange for costs waivers, or in the worst case have a far lower bill to pay than their own. The result is a court system that is clogged up with cases that primarily serve corporations, all of which costs you money - judges, juries, and staff are taxpayer funded.

Junk lawsuits can and frequently do result in "loser pays" awards and the disciplining of the lawyer who signed off on it.

Then theres also the cost to individuals. Loser pays is really only feasible in welfare states - the consequences of it absent public health and disability payments are too disastrous for any literate people to stomach otherwise.

makattak · « **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2011, 10:13:11 PM »

Quote from: De Selby on August 29, 2011, 07:51:03 PM

Junk lawsuits can and frequently do result in "loser pays" awards and the disciplining of the lawyer who signed off on it. <citation needed>

Are you talking about the legal system in the United States? And just how do you define "frequently"? One out of 100? 1000? 1000000000?

De Selby · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2011, 02:27:49 AM »

Quote from: makattak on August 29, 2011, 10:13:11 PM

Are you talking about the legal system in the United States? And just how do you define "frequently"? One out of 100? 1000? 1000000000?

Yes, United States, where I'm still licensed to practice law. I don't have a statistic, but I can tell you from experience (as can any other practicing lawyer) that sanctions are a real possibility, and they do deter lawyers from filing groundless complaints.

As Ned pointed out, mostly what happens is that the media doesnt get it, so they report half the story and allow us all to enjoy another "crazy lawyer" tale.

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2011, 03:03:31 AM »

I suspect that the mother was getting stupidly large amounts of cash from kid's father for child support and kept most for herself, nickel-and-diming the kids whenever possible. Not exactly unknown behavior amongst the gold-digger crowd.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2011, 04:27:39 AM »

Quote

Junk lawsuits can and frequently do result in "loser pays" awards and the disciplining of the lawyer who signed off on it.

I can't argue that it happens but it doesn't happen anywhere near enough.

De Selby · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2011, 05:04:49 AM »

Quote from: RoadKingLarry on August 30, 2011, 04:27:39 AM

I can't argue that it happens but it doesn't happen anywhere near enough.

Where doesn't happen, it's mainly due to the incompetence of the defendants lawyers - our system doesn't employ judges to play nanny for anyone.

That's a benefit in my book - if the parties won't raise an issue why should the taxpayers raise it for them? There are legal tools out there for you to recover where a junk lawsuit has been filed. If they aren't used, we should really be questioning the extent to which this is media hype as opposed to a real problem

MillCreek · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2011, 08:34:27 AM »

Quote from: De Selby on August 30, 2011, 05:04:49 AM

Where doesn't happen, it's mainly due to the incompetence of the defendants lawyers - our system doesn't employ judges to play nanny for anyone.

That's a benefit in my book - if the parties won't raise an issue why should the taxpayers raise it for them? There are legal tools out there for you to recover where a junk lawsuit has been filed. If they aren't used, we should really be questioning the extent to which this is media hype as opposed to a real problem

I guess it depends on what you define as a 'junk lawsuit'. In my area, medical malpractice defense, we win around 80% of the cases we take to trial. Certainly, many of those cases should not have been filed, but rarely are there going to be grounds for successful Rule 11 sanctions.

makattak · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2011, 09:15:10 AM »

Quote from: De Selby on August 30, 2011, 02:27:49 AM

Yes, United States, where I'm still licensed to practice law. I don't have a statistic, but I can tell you from experience (as can any other practicing lawyer) that sanctions are a real possibility, and they do deter lawyers from filing groundless complaints.

As Ned pointed out, mostly what happens is that the media doesnt get it, so they report half the story and allow us all to enjoy another "crazy lawyer" tale.

Ah, I see what you mean by "sanctions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung

A recent obvious case of "lawfare". Mr. Pearson used his position as an attorney to harrass and maliciously damage the Chungs. His "sanctions" were $12,000. The attorney fees for the Chungs were in excess of $83,000. (Which they paid through donations to a legal defense fund given when this EGREGIOUS action by Mr. Pearson came to light.) They sold their dry cleaning business where the incident leading to this case occurred.

Oh, and he's still licensed to practice law in DC. After showing a willingness to use it as a weapon for a minor dispute, the DC bar did not disbar him.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #20 on:** August 30, 2011, 09:32:48 AM »

the chungs didn't go after him. your solution would make it even less likely since if they lost they would have to pay both lawyers. in va we have a system that works and surprises some folks

makattak · « **Reply #21 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:12:12 AM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 30, 2011, 09:32:48 AM

the chungs didn't go after him. your solution would make it even less likely since if they lost they would have to pay both lawyers. in va we have a system that works and surprises some folks

They didn't go after him because it would have cost even more money to go after him. (And they had no certainty they would have both won judgement against him and then actually get him to pay it.)

Also, this didn't happen in Virginia, but DC.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:19:48 AM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 30, 2011, 09:32:48 AM

the chungs didn't go after him. your solution would make it even less likely since if they lost they would have to pay both lawyers. in va we have a system that works and surprises some folks

Loser pays would have cost Pearson the $83,000 in legal fees that the Chungs put out.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #23 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:43:45 AM »

We definitely need some sort of tort reform, but I agree "loser pays" isn't it.

For every frivolous or malicious suit it would prevent, I've got a gut feeling there's going to be lots of "honest" suits where perhaps the case would not go their way, but it was hardly some sort of money grab either.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #24 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:56:21 AM »

We don't need "loser pays." We need mandatory sanctions (fines and suspensions) against attorneys who bring frivolous lawsuits. The case of these "kids" is a perfect example. The judge clearly saw it as a frivolous lawsuit devised by the father as revenge against his ex-wife -- yet the judge declined to whack him for it.

I think the wife is well off not being married to a first-class jerk like that ... and I feel sorry for any guy who marries the daughter.

News:

Author Topic: Legal System, working as intended. (Read 8281 times)