![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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!! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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!! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 ____________________ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |