Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
what is? Being vague?


My lay knowledge of class action tort is that it is damage to a group
or class of people. Seems to me our flying community (not just the newsgroup
but the community as a whole) constitutes a class. Seems to me that our
class is damaged every time an exhorbitant settlement or even judgement
occurs. In many cases, the settlement seems more like extortion than
justice. In the end, we are damaged because insurance costs skyrocket; We
are damaged in that vendors leave the aviation business resulting in higher
parts costs due to restricted competition. We are damaged because aircraft
manufacturers jack prices to cover their insurance. We are damaged when more
restrictions are placed on our flying. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.....
Seems to me an actionable tort lies in there. I know we must have a
legal pundit or two in our group -- what say you?
I s'pose the biggest problem would be to find a lawyer willing to sue
another lawyer.

Well..... That felt good.