![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
Ok, how about this, keep contingency fees but consider excluding punitive damages from the fee calculation *and* most importantly, impose "loser pays." What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a) the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public fund" that benefits society at large. I'm not so upset about the idea of contingency as much as I am about a jury awarding $40M to somebody too stupid to realize the coffee is hot. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John T wrote:
What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a) the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public fund" that benefits society at large. Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad companies from making dangerous products why not simply leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is paid for their actual losses and the party causing the injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Doug Carter" wrote in message ... John T wrote: What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a) the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public fund" that benefits society at large. Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad companies from making dangerous products why not simply leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is paid for their actual losses and the party causing the injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate. I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Doug Carter wrote:
the party causing the injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate. Dave Stadt replied: I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha. Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-) Russell Kent |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Russell Kent wrote:
Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-) Gee, that seems a little harsh for lying to a government lawyer. |
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 |