Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

LWG wrote:
The real problem is the standard of proof and admissibility in civil cases.
In every jurisdiction I know of, in negligence cases an expert can provide
an opinion if his opinion is based upon a reasonable degree of certainty
*or* probability in his field. That means that if something is more likely
than not, defined as 50.00...001% likely, an expert can express an opinion
as to causation. Remember that the state must prove a criminal defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and/or to a moral certainty. Some civil
causes of action require clear and convincing evidence before a plaintiff
prevails.

I think there is a little more mass to the Lincoln Memorial on the back of a
penny than to Lincoln's head. Thus an expert can express an opinion to a
reasonable degree of mathematical certainty or probability that a flipped
penny will land on heads. Now anyone who knows anything about flipping
pennies knows that's nonsense -- one can't tell how a coin will land on the
next flip -- but this guy can swear to it before a jury. Add a little grey
hair to a good resume, and a plaintiff can walk away with a lot of money
with nothing but fluff for evidence on causation.

It's hard to blame the plaintiff. How can you really fault her for making a
claim? She is only asking that a jury compensate her for someone else's
fault. If she can't prove it, she loses the case. If her lawyer can't
prove it, he loses money and time. We need to focus on the reason why so
much silly, careless and irresponsible conduct results in big jury awards.
I submit that in part, the reason is due to an unreasonably low standard of
proof in civil cases.

For the legal-minded, yes Daubert helped (albeit on a slightly different
point), but doesn't apply to every forum and doesn't go far enough.

"Tim" wrote in message
...

Denny 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 also think it is due to juries selected to be emotional rather that
factual. Do not select the engineer, but the little old homemaker. (no
insult intended)

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

Or Al Gore. Or the Hilary team.


At least they don't start wars and kill tens of thousands of people (and
thouands of Americans - for many, the others don't really seem to count)
based on blatant lies.


Only in your mind. I place the responsibility for the 9/11 attack
squarely on Clinton's shoulders. His inaction against the building
terrorist threat emboldened them and allowed them to plan and execute
their attack.

I blame all the previous administrations who at one time or other supported
and even created those we now call terrorists.

I think a loser and loser's lawyer pays system would very effectively
accomplish this goal.

And I think we are at an impasse. It would accomplish this goal, but
it would also harm many people with limited resources and valid cases.

-- dj

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:56:41 +0100, Stefan
wrote:

Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system. But to my
knowledge, sentences are still made by judges and juries, not by

But we are talking civil suites, not criminal. We are talking monetary
settlements, not jail time.

attorneys. So blame the judges, juries and maybe the legal system, but
not the attorneay who just try to make the "best" of it.

The attorneys work the system to make the most of it. Each side calls
in the so called experts to convince people who are intentionally
picked that will know nothing about the topic that the manufacturer
was at fault. If you know anything about the subject then the one
side will do their best to see you do not get on that jury. If you
are widely read, you may not end up being picked to serve on a jury or
if so it'll be rare.

It is purely a debating contest of presenting information whether
valid or not in such a manner as to convince the unknowing that some
one is at fault.



Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:38:11 -0600, "Jim B"
wrote:

How ridiculous. Should the airplane have known that there was a building in
it's path, recognized the wind speed, required bank angle, airspeed,
altitude to avoid said building then alerted the pilot or kicked in the
autopilot? Or should the airplane should have been built so it's occupants
would survive any crash? WTF? How can the design of the airplane be at
fault?

You are right. They are the worst of the scum. They use the grief and
vulnerability of the victims survivors to line their own pockets knowing
that the manufacturers would rather settle than fight the case and suffer
the publicity.

Did anybody see the interview of the lawyer representing Anna Nicole Smith's
mother and how he bilked Dow Corning on the breast implant deal? He made
millions, Dow Corning went broke, then the FDA said that the implants were

The two lawyers made more off that case than DC grossed in a year and
DC is a large corporation. They managed to put together enough cases
that is was cheaper to just put several Billion (yes that is with a
B) into a pot and then declare chapter 11 to "keep from going broke"

There comes a point where there are enough simultaneous cases that it
becomes almost impossible to pursue them all let alone mount an
effective defense. Even huge corporations don't have that kind of
resources. It's not only expensive but can take literally thousands
of people to pursue. There were literally teams of people working on
quite a few *truckloads* of paper work. The amount of paperwork was
unbelievable.

As I recall there never was any research to support the claims made
against the company, but well presented "junk science" won out". The
ones who got rich were the main lawyers, not the claimants. Nor do I
believe the FDA said the implants were unsafe. They just removed them
from the market until more research could be done.

Many of us in the field of computers and medicine do not recognize the
term expert any more. If a true expert exists then there could not be
another true expert with opposing views. In many cases those
testifying will no longer allow some one to call them an expert.
"Knowledgeable in the field" is an acceptable alternative and does not
carry the connotations of expert to mislead the unknowing.

indeed safe after all. Scum.
Jim

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mar 3, 8:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"


All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

Steve, good for you. From the time I first heard about the case
pending by the lady against McDonalds for the hot coffee, I'd always
said it was a legitimate claim, but lots of people said I was wrong.
I guess you, like me and her attorney, would have seen that the lady's
case was legitimate "on first viewing." Since she won it was, by
definition, legitimate. Just think how much time, expense and effort
would have been saved if Judge McNicoll had been on the case and
available "on first viewing" to let everyone know what the outcome
should have been!!

I just wish she'd had a "loser pays" rule to rely on since McDonalds
obviously ignored what was apparant "on first viewing."

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 3, 8:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"


All legitimate cases look legitimate on first viewing.

Steve, good for you. From the time I first heard about the case
pending by the lady against McDonalds for the hot coffee, I'd always
said it was a legitimate claim, but lots of people said I was wrong.
I guess you, like me and her attorney, would have seen that the lady's
case was legitimate "on first viewing." Since she won it was, by
definition, legitimate. Just think how much time, expense and effort
would have been saved if Judge McNicoll had been on the case and
available "on first viewing" to let everyone know what the outcome
should have been!!

I just wish she'd had a "loser pays" rule to rely on since McDonalds
obviously ignored what was apparant "on first viewing."


All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.

All LEGITIMATE cases look legitimate on first viewing. That was not a
legitimate case, the woman's injuries were completely her own fault.-

She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.

wrote in message
oups.com...

She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.


You are incredibly naive. End of story.

She won. Ergo, it was legitimate. End of story.

You are incredibly naive. End of story.


Not a very good argument. I didn't expect you to admit defeat this
quickly.

What about the second part of my query? Wouldn't a loser pays statute
have been appropriate?