No problem. We disagree.
Dudley Henriques

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

This is the old " greedy people" argument. I don't buy it; never have; and
never will.

I wasn't (intentionally) making a "greedy people" argument.
I was making the argument that cases without merit should
not result in any advantage for the person bringing the
case, which would naturally result in less of them being
brought.

You can have an entire country full of greedy people, all wanting to sue
somebody for God knows what, and indeed, this is exactly what the lawyers
have created in American society....and nothing happens....absolutely
NOTHING....until the lawyer enters the lawsuit equation. You can have a
million people, all wanting to use the legal system for profit and
personal
gain, but NOTHING happens unless there is a willing lawyer in this
equation.

One could say the same thing about the judge, the jury and
the law, without them, the case can't go forward. In fact,
both sides can go to court without lawyers if they want to.
If you think cases should not go to court, it's easy to stop
by changing the law.

Lawyers advertizing for lawsuits and fishing the population for
"customers",
and lawyers actively engaged in a constant quest to make money in the
lawsuit marketplace is where the blame lies; not with a greedy population.

I agree that these practices are reprehensible. If the
government buried our tax money in open fields - and people
dug up that money and stole it, I'd think the theft was
reprehensible too, but I'd change the way the gov stored
money, not outlaw maps and shovels.

My point is that I've got no problem with legitimate cases
being filed, and I've got no problem with each side having
the best possible legal representation. I've got a problem
with laws that allow recovery in situations that harm
society and I've got a problem with juries who award damages
when they shouldn't. What's wrong with a system that always
comes to the right answer?

In fact, if the absolute truth is desired, the American lawyer should be
in
the greed equation to PROTECT the system from harm....not to cause that
harm!!!!!

We agree here, but typically, you have two sides that both
think they are doing the right thing. Which one is correct?
It's the judge, jury and laws that determine that. If
anything, the airplane manufacturer has more money and
spends more on the defense, but still loses too often.

This just strikes me as another failure to accept
responsibility that is too prevalent in our society. No one
wants to blame the poor jury - they were too stupid to know
what they were doing and they were bamboozled by the wicked
attorney on one side. No one wants to ask why weren't they
bamboozled by the other (good) attorney (of course, we might
dispute which one was the good one). No one wants to blame
the poor widow bringing the case (we wouldn't want to call
her "greedy" now would we, that's not polite, besides she's
a widow, surely she deserves some recompense for her loss).
We don't want to blame the laws made by our own elected
officials. Those laws seem so fair - if someone causes an
accident, they should pay.

So who can we blame?

--
Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.

(first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)