Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
claiming defective design...
Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
\We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...

I am fairly sure that we beat this issue to death in the recent past, and I
suspect that I participated then as well, but (just in case) here goes:

The problem in torts is not really the lawyers, the judges, or even the
juries (despite my personal feelings); but is instead the result of two
doctrines which were written into our laws about 50 years ago, and which
desperately need to be repealed!

They a
Strict Liability
Joint and Several Liability

After we fix the root cause of the problem, it will be time to look and the
merits of a "loser pays" system, or some variation thereof.

Just my $0.02
Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
claiming defective design...
Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
\We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...

I am fairly sure that we beat this issue to death in the recent past, and I
suspect that I participated then as well, but (just in case) here goes:

The problem in torts is not really the lawyers, the judges, or even the
juries (despite my personal feelings); but is instead the result of two
doctrines which were written into our laws about 50 years ago, and which
desperately need to be repealed!

They a
Strict Liability
Joint and Several Liability

After we fix the root cause of the problem, it will be time to look and the
merits of a "loser pays" system, or some variation thereof.

How so? I don't see the connection? Cirrus has NO liability in the
Lidle crash and thus neither doctrine above should be an issue.

Matt

It's not just that they can get emotional, there is also the attitude
by many on a jury that "It is only the insurance company's money".

Many years ago, I was on a civil jury that involved an injury to a
passenger on a commuter flight. IIRC, the aircraft was a Beech 99. The
aircraft hit severe turbulence, and one passenger, who had removed her
seatbelt, was badly injured. None of the other passengers, all of whom
had
heeded the pilots announcement to ensure their seatbelts were fastened,
were not hurt.

The facts, as presented to us, were that the injured lady was very
badly overweight and needed a seatbelt extender. She first refused to
wear
it and only did so when the pilot said he would call the police and have
her removed from the aircraft. She then agreed to wear it and put it
on. Seven other passengers all testified that this lady removed her
seatbelt during the take-off roll and was bragging to them that "you don't
have to wear a seatbelt on an airplane." Four passengers even pleaded
with
her to put it back on when the pilot announced that there was turbulence
ahead. They said her response was "The pilots just like to order us
around. You don't need to wear a seatbelt in an airplane."

When the trial was over and we went back to the jury room to
deliberate, we all agreed that this lady was injured and that her medical
bills were reasonable. However, I refused to award her any money
whatsoever as I felt she was 100% at fault. The first vote was 5-1 (only 6
people on a civil jury in New York at this time) in favor of giving her
the
amount requested (approximately $600,000, of which $450,000 was for pain
and suffering). When I explained why I was opposed to giving her a penny,
two other jurors immediately agreed with me. The jury forelady then told
us we were extremely selfish as this lady had been badly injured and
deserved some compensation. The forelady then added "It's only the
insurance companies money. It won't cost the airline anything."

We ended up a hung jury (3 award nothing, 2 award medical bills but
no pain and suffering, and 1 award everything). I have no idea what the
eventual disposition of the case was.

WARNING: I am not an attorney; the following is my layman's opinion!

IMHO, this is a wonderful example of the evil of "Strict Laibility." Simply
because the injury occurred on the aircraft operators flight, she was
justified in suing for her injuries. The judge was not permitted to dismiss
the case on the grounds of her contributory negligence, as he may otherwise
have been able to do. Further, the doctrine of "Strict Liability" would
have also guided his instructions to the jury.

Just my $0.02
Peter

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dow-Corning settled in
the implant suits when it wasn't even at fault. That is simply wrong
and is a result of lawyers filing lots of suits that cost a fortune to
defend against. So the lawyers take a lion's share of the blame, but I
agree that judges and juries have their fair share as well along with
the plaintiffs.

Matt


Yeah, in the case of the silicone breast implant fiasco, it was a judge
in Alabama, where one of the class actions landed, who unilaterally
decided, despite a lack of medical evidence, that silicone was causing
all kinds of medical problems. That one ignoramus, who essentially set
himself up as an expert in epidemiology, was the cause of huge awards
being distributed. It took some years for the science and analysis to be
done to disprove a connection to all the systemic diseases that award
recipients claimed to have gotten from silicone.

"Denny" wrote in message
s.com...
I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
claiming defective design...
Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
\We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...

It is the case here in the UK, the loser pays both sides costs.

Tax the earnings of all laywers by say 1% and form a fund to support lawsuits by those who otherwise can't afford it.

The point isn't that they can't afford it (at least starting out). The
point is that even if they could afford starting the lawsuit, the (much)
deeper pocket can easily bury the plaintiff, raising his legal bills far
beyond what would be reasonable if it weren't a war. And that is what a
lawsuit is - a war.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you
cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by small-resource
folks against larger companies, who are more likely to win at trial simply
through outspending on lawyers. That's also a common tactic - drown the
assaulting party in their own legal fees until they run out of time and
money, even before the trial starts. "Loser pays" doesn't address this,
and in fact exacerbates the problem.

This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry.

No it doesn't. Small fry with legitimate cases pay their lawyers out of
their winnings. A loser pays system has no downside.

Yes, it does. Not all cases look legitimate on first viewing, and
that's the viewing that the lawyer who will decide whether to risk a
contingincy case will see. Small fry (or even big fry) with legitimate
cases can still lose. Why should a lawyer risk it when the downside is
on him?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
claiming defective design...
Maybe she can sue his parents for having had a stupid child...
\We absolutely need a 'loser pays' law in this country...

I am fairly sure that we beat this issue to death in the recent past,
and I
suspect that I participated then as well, but (just in case) here goes:

The problem in torts is not really the lawyers, the judges, or even the
juries (despite my personal feelings); but is instead the result of two
doctrines which were written into our laws about 50 years ago, and which
desperately need to be repealed!

They a
Strict Liability
Joint and Several Liability

After we fix the root cause of the problem, it will be time to look and
the
merits of a "loser pays" system, or some variation thereof.

How so? I don't see the connection? Cirrus has NO liability in the
Lidle crash and thus neither doctrine above should be an issue.

They built the airplane. As strict laibility was explained to me, that is
sufficient reason that the case must be heard--a judge cannot dismiss it
with prejudice. Therefore, as it was explained to me, the case can go to
trial and a jury can award whatever they see fit.

Again, I am not a lawyer...

Peter

Jose wrote:
Tax the earnings of all laywers by say 1% and form a fund to support
lawsuits by those who otherwise can't afford it.

The point isn't that they can't afford it (at least starting out). The
point is that even if they could afford starting the lawsuit, the (much)
deeper pocket can easily bury the plaintiff, raising his legal bills far
beyond what would be reasonable if it weren't a war. And that is what a
lawsuit is - a war.

Jose

Do you have any idea how much 1% of what all of the lawyers in the USA
make each year would amount to as a war chest for the downtrodden? I
don't think many corporations have deeper pockets than that.

Matt

("Denny" wrote)
I see where the widow of Cory Lidel has filed a suit against Cirrus
claiming defective design...


Defective?

A defective design would have missed the building.


Montblack