Club Management Issue

Peter Clark wrote:
Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

When anything breaks and a loss is either incurred or can
be imagined to have occurred then an opportunity is
created for lawyers to file suits and juries to award
damages. Who, if anyone, was responsible for the parts
failure is not important nor even considered in this
process. Target identification is based on depth of
pockets, period.

We see repeated claims that Jews run everything in the
U.S.A. This could only be true if there is a higher than
average representation of Jews within the population of
lawyers.

Perhaps if Edwards lands the Veep job Kerry will have him
lead the charge on tort reform!!

So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product caused
you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on principle?
Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better pray
that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Peter Clark wrote:
Maybe I missed it but who said that the owners shirked any required
maintenance, or were lax in their maintenance here? Things break. I
lost an alternator control unit in a 2003 Skyhawk SP which was
delivered in December and only had 75 hours total time. How could
that possibly be due to bad/non maintenance?

When anything breaks and a loss is either incurred or can
be imagined to have occurred then an opportunity is
created for lawyers to file suits and juries to award
damages. Who, if anyone, was responsible for the parts
failure is not important nor even considered in this
process. Target identification is based on depth of
pockets, period.

We see repeated claims that Jews run everything in the
U.S.A. This could only be true if there is a higher than
average representation of Jews within the population of
lawyers.

Perhaps if Edwards lands the Veep job Kerry will have him
lead the charge on tort reform!!

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message


So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product
caused you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product
on principle? Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off
you. (You better pray that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

"Tort reform" does not mean "no more lawsuits".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Dan Thompson wrote:
So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product caused
you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on principle?
Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better pray
that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

I do pray for tort reform; the sooner the better. Our
system has been hijacked by the trial lawyers for their
personal enrichment by allowing contingency fees, class
action suits and not adopting the 'loser pays' rule.

If you think you have suffered a loss because of someone
else, then by all means, sue; if you win, collect what
you are out, if you lose you should pay for the damage you
caused the other party.

My point remains that I object to the higher prices I pay
for everything because of jury awards for obscene amounts
of punitive damages in cases where the injured simply
wanted to avoid personal responsibility and the law firms
wanted to make a ton of money.

How much more will we pay for vacuum pumps because the
Carnahan family soaked Parker Hannifin to the tune of $4m
for damages caused by vacuum pumps that did not fail and
did not contribute to the crash?

OK, so you would sue the maker of a defective product that made you a
quadraplegic. I respect that.

Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job prospects
for quadraplegics are pretty dismal. Or are you going to argue your own
case to the jury, from a gurney wheeled into the courtroom? The lawyer is
going to have out of pocket expenses in this lawsuit, where's that money
going to come from?

And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose? What if
the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going to
pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay? Should you be required to prove
you could pay if you lost, before you even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Dan Thompson wrote:
So, Doug, if you become a quadriplegic because some defective product
caused
you to crash, will you refuse to sue the maker of that product on
principle?
Wouldn't want some sue-happy lawyer getting rich off you. (You better
pray
that tort "reform" hasn't happened yet.)

I do pray for tort reform; the sooner the better. Our
system has been hijacked by the trial lawyers for their
personal enrichment by allowing contingency fees, class
action suits and not adopting the 'loser pays' rule.

If you think you have suffered a loss because of someone
else, then by all means, sue; if you win, collect what
you are out, if you lose you should pay for the damage you
caused the other party.

My point remains that I object to the higher prices I pay
for everything because of jury awards for obscene amounts
of punitive damages in cases where the injured simply
wanted to avoid personal responsibility and the law firms
wanted to make a ton of money.

How much more will we pay for vacuum pumps because the
Carnahan family soaked Parker Hannifin to the tune of $4m
for damages caused by vacuum pumps that did not fail and
did not contribute to the crash?

Dan Thompson wrote:
Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job prospects
for quadraplegics are pretty dismal.

First, your presuming I'm broke to begin with and that my
income stops with the accident. Neither is necessarily
true. The argument for "increasing access to the courts"
is commonly used to rationalize contingency fees. Does
this increase in suits result in a net-net greater good
for society? I don't think so.

While, on one hand contingency allows someone with little
money to file a suit and possible receive a huge award, on
the other, *someone else* is paying that award whether it
is reasonable or not. How can a jury determine the
"appropriate" punitive damage amount? These costs are
passed on to society. Does society in the U.S. benefit
more from this trade off than in Japan or England?

I'm not an expert on this but I think the crimes of
"maintenance" and "champerty" went back to biblical times.
Contingency seems to be the combination of these two.
If not eliminated perhaps Contingency should be limited to
"maintenance" by allowing the lawyer to recover his costs
from the spoils but not profit from them (champerty). A
slippery slope to be on though...

And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose? What if
the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going to
pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay?

I think you more eloquently state my argument than me.
Clearly, as done in much of the rest of the world, the
prospective plaintiff had to consider a potential down
side as well as a possible up side then a better balance
would be achieved.

Should you be required to prove you could pay if you lost, before you even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

Interesting question. In most states you have to prove
you have insurance or deep pockets to license a car
because you are creating a potential liability by putting
that car on the road. When you file a suit you create a
potential liability as well.

But, my position depends on more personal responsibility
that most Americans have the stomach for so I doubt things
will change. Fewer and fewer companies will make risky
products (like vacuum pumps) and your daughter may not
have access to a doctor to deliver her child.

The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal protection.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead, it
handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything or
anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard, and
their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all the
legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your breath.

Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung by
the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
gone haywire.

What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid of
the bad ones.




"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Dan Thompson wrote:
Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job
prospects
for quadraplegics are pretty dismal.

First, your presuming I'm broke to begin with and that my
income stops with the accident. Neither is necessarily
true. The argument for "increasing access to the courts"
is commonly used to rationalize contingency fees. Does
this increase in suits result in a net-net greater good
for society? I don't think so.

While, on one hand contingency allows someone with little
money to file a suit and possible receive a huge award, on
the other, *someone else* is paying that award whether it
is reasonable or not. How can a jury determine the
"appropriate" punitive damage amount? These costs are
passed on to society. Does society in the U.S. benefit
more from this trade off than in Japan or England?

I'm not an expert on this but I think the crimes of
"maintenance" and "champerty" went back to biblical times.
Contingency seems to be the combination of these two.
If not eliminated perhaps Contingency should be limited to
"maintenance" by allowing the lawyer to recover his costs
from the spoils but not profit from them (champerty). A
slippery slope to be on though...

And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose?
What if
the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going
to
pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay?

I think you more eloquently state my argument than me.
Clearly, as done in much of the rest of the world, the
prospective plaintiff had to consider a potential down
side as well as a possible up side then a better balance
would be achieved.

Should you be required to prove you could pay if you lost, before you
even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

Interesting question. In most states you have to prove
you have insurance or deep pockets to license a car
because you are creating a potential liability by putting
that car on the road. When you file a suit you create a
potential liability as well.

But, my position depends on more personal responsibility
that most Americans have the stomach for so I doubt things
will change. Fewer and fewer companies will make risky
products (like vacuum pumps) and your daughter may not
have access to a doctor to deliver her child.

Dude wrote:
The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal protection.

Ok, how about this, keep contingency fees but consider
excluding punitive damages from the fee calculation *and*
most importantly, impose "loser pays."

What good for the goose is good for the gander...if a
lawyer expects to profit from 1/3 of the spoils when he
wins then he should pay 1/3 of the other sides costs if he
loses.

The point is to build a natural check into what is now a
run-a-way system not to preclude the really injured from
recourse.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own.

I agree. There seems to be no incentive for them to do so.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal
protection.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead,
it
handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything
or
anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard,
and
their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all
the
legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your
breath.

Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung
by
the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
gone haywire.

What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid
of
the bad ones.

Judges are all members of the ABA, too.