Gloom

Jose wrote:
In spite of GARA, liability is still the single biggest threat to
the success of GA. The only thing that will save aviation is
further, drastic Tort reform. We need to limit lawsuits of ANY kind
in aviation to 7 years

How would you protect the innocent against valid claims? Or do you
aver that no claims are valid?

Jose

Loser pays.

How would you protect the innocent against valid claims? Or do you
aver that no claims are valid?
Loser pays.

Attractive on the surface, but that means deeper pockets can take the
risk much more easily than shallow pockets. Then, the mere =threat= of
a lawsuit has a dampening effect proportional to the pockets making the
thread, and inversely proportional to the pockets receiving it.

That's a serious flaw.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
How would you protect the innocent against valid claims? Or do you
aver that no claims are valid?
Loser pays.

Attractive on the surface, but that means deeper pockets can take the
risk much more easily than shallow pockets. Then, the mere =threat=
of a lawsuit has a dampening effect proportional to the pockets
making the thread, and inversely proportional to the pockets
receiving it.
That's a serious flaw.

Jose

Sorry but the legal system should be able to be used as a get rich quick
program. Actually there is a much better program that I would propose but
there is no way in hell it would ever get passed.

In my plan there would be the outcomes of any civil litigation.

Plaintiff wins
Plaintiff loses
Plaintiff's lawyer pays all costs because this suit is so without merit that
it is stupid. After any lawyer gets three of these they are dis-barred.

There is a judge in DC that is suing for $54Mil because a dry cleaner lost
his pants. That's right a judge. This case actually made it to court without
being thrown out. If you can look at that case and not say that tort reform
is needed then you live in a different world than I do.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/004005.php

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Sorry but the legal system should be able to be used as a get rich
quick program.

Obviously, I should have written SHOULDN'T in the above.

On 2007-06-18 12:35:27 -0400, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net said:

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Sorry but the legal system should be able to be used as a get rich
quick program.

Obviously, I should have written SHOULDN'T in the above.

Thank GOD! For a minute there I thought you were a lawyer.
:-))))
Dudley Henriques

Sorry but the legal system should [not] be able to
be used as a get rich quick program.

I agree (as corrected). But I am not proposing that it should, nor am I
proposing that the present system is not flawed.

Plaintiff wins
Plaintiff loses
Plaintiff's lawyer pays all costs because this suit is so without merit that
it is stupid. After any lawyer gets three of these they are dis-barred.

This has some merit, but I would add

4: Defendent's lawyer pays all costs because their defense tactics are
so without merit that it is stupid and is only used to make it difficult
to bring legitimate suits against big corporations. Microsoft comes to
mind, as does Sony. (google "Sony Rootkit")

There is a judge in DC that is suing for $54Mil...

So? The problem isn't in the ability to bring suit, but in whether or
not it's taken seriously upon investigation.

This case actually made it to court without
being thrown out.

Were the clothes damaged? That is a legitimate tort. Only after the
facts are determined are the damages decided. In general, they cannot
be more than requested, but can be less. (Maybe this should be
reconsidered)

Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Sorry but the legal system should [not] be able to
be used as a get rich quick program.

I agree (as corrected). But I am not proposing that it should, nor
am I proposing that the present system is not flawed.

Plaintiff wins
Plaintiff loses
Plaintiff's lawyer pays all costs because this suit is so without
merit that it is stupid. After any lawyer gets three of these they
are dis-barred.

This has some merit, but I would add

4: Defendent's lawyer pays all costs because their defense tactics
are so without merit that it is stupid and is only used to make it
difficult to bring legitimate suits against big corporations. Microsoft
comes to mind, as does Sony. (google "Sony Rootkit")

There is a judge in DC that is suing for $54Mil...

So? The problem isn't in the ability to bring suit, but in whether or
not it's taken seriously upon investigation.

This case actually made it to court without
being thrown out.

Were the clothes damaged? That is a legitimate tort. Only after the
facts are determined are the damages decided. In general, they cannot
be more than requested, but can be less. (Maybe this should be
reconsidered)

Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?

Jose

Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But unless,
before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat the judge there
is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But unless,
before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat the judge there
is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

Surprisingly, this is a case that even the trial lawyers trade
association is saying should not have made it to trial.
(Then again, it is the judge and not a trial attorney who is
representing himself in this case.)

Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?

Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But unless,
before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat the judge there
is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

The links seem to be long on opinion and short on facts, and the trial
is not over yet. No matter. Everyone is being silly in this case; the
pity is it costs real people real money.

Suing is still a gamble, not on whether you win or lose, but on whether
you can intimidate the other party into folding. A loser pays system
would not address the intimidation part, since the (significantly)
richer party can afford the loss but may well choose to proceed anyway,
hoping to chicken the other party out.

OF course the claim above is not worth $54 million. I don't think
anybody, including the claimant, believes it is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Was he =awarded= anything ridiculous?

Read some of the links on the site I posted and you decide. But
unless, before the dry cleaner lost the pants, he used them to beat
the judge there is no way this claim is worth $54mil.

The links seem to be long on opinion and short on facts, and the trial
is not over yet. No matter. Everyone is being silly in this case;
the pity is it costs real people real money.

Suing is still a gamble, not on whether you win or lose, but on
whether you can intimidate the other party into folding. A loser
pays system would not address the intimidation part, since the
(significantly) richer party can afford the loss but may well choose
to proceed anyway, hoping to chicken the other party out.

Not much of a gamble at all in this case. Filing fees for a civil action in
DC are $120.00. He is his own lawyer. The only people out any real money is
the defendant.

The one plus is that the judge who filed the suit is probably not going to
keep his job. He is up for re-appointment soon.


OF course the claim above is not worth $54 million. I don't think
anybody, including the claimant, believes it is.

Jose

Then he lied in court documents and should be prosecuted.