Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On Dec 6, 4:49 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
The only way the system would have worked in this case would
be if the judge had thrown out the award and then jailed the lawyer for
wasting the court's time.

Matt

Since the jury ruled in the plaintiff's favor (as did the judge when
he still left $600,000+ in her favor), I assume you mean the
defendant's lawyer.

wrote:
On Dec 6, 4:49 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
The only way the system would have worked in this case would
be if the judge had thrown out the award and then jailed the lawyer for
wasting the court's time.

Matt

Since the jury ruled in the plaintiff's favor (as did the judge when
he still left $600,000+ in her favor), I assume you mean the
defendant's lawyer.

No, I meant the plaintiff's lawyer ... and you knew that.

On Dec 6, 4:21 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

No, I meant the plaintiff's lawyer ... and you knew that.

Yeah, I did.

Although why would the party who was found to have been correct have
to pay the one who was found to have been wrong? Especially since the
plaintiff only wanted $20,000 before trial to just help with her
medical bills, and McD told her to go pound sand?

However, do you think there should be a "loser pays" rule, also? This
is a favorite of the "anti-frivolous litigation" crowd. Of course,
since the plaintiff won, that would mean that McD would have also had
to pay her lawyer's fees; as would Parker Hannifin had to do in its
case.

wrote:
On Dec 6, 4:21 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

No, I meant the plaintiff's lawyer ... and you knew that.

Yeah, I did.

Although why would the party who was found to have been correct have
to pay the one who was found to have been wrong? Especially since the
plaintiff only wanted $20,000 before trial to just help with her
medical bills, and McD told her to go pound sand?

Having been found to be correct isn't the same as being correct.


However, do you think there should be a "loser pays" rule, also? This
is a favorite of the "anti-frivolous litigation" crowd. Of course,
since the plaintiff won, that would mean that McD would have also had
to pay her lawyer's fees; as would Parker Hannifin had to do in its
case.

I'm generally in favor of that, but we also need some judicial reform to
go along with it. We need to reform the system so that the only basis
for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets. I also
believe that the burden should be in the individual who buys a product
or service and not on the product maker or service provider. I'm
talking normal cases here and not where a manufacturer as acted
fraudulently, etc.

Matt

On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.

The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

I also
believe that the burden should be in the individual who buys a product
or service and not on the product maker or service provider. I'm
talking normal cases here and not where a manufacturer as acted
fraudulently, etc.

Under the law and as instructed to every jury, the burden of proof is
on the plaintiff to prove every element of the case, except in very
special cases,(such as the IRS) including the case we're talking
about. Even where the deft has allegedly acted fraudulently, the
burden is on the plaintiff (and in a fraud case, it is very
difficult). So it isn't the cakewalk some people think it is.

So, everything you said you want is, in fact, what we presently have.
If there are any other lawyers out there who can comment on this,
please speak up!

In article ,
skym wrote:

On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.

The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

how many times does someone without assets get sued?

'nuff said.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
skym wrote:

On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.

The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

how many times does someone without assets get sued?

'nuff said.

You're kidding, right?

What would be the point in suing someone without assets unless you
like personally supporting a lawyer?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

'nuff said.



Well, not exactly "nuff said."

First, entities with money (or insurance) get sued if they are at
fault and have money, not just because they have money. Again, show
me any law that says that a person with money is liable because of
that fact and that fault is not required. Naturally, there are few
civil actions against persons without money because no matter how
extreme or deliberate their wrongdoing or how serious the damage to
the plaintiff, nothing is to be gained by suing them, The civil
justice system is meant to compensate an injured person. If the
defendant doesn't have the means to compensate the plaintiff, why
should they be sued? Do you advocate just suing for the hell of it?
You should be ashamed; it would waste the resources of government;
waste taxpayers' money; consume the time of jurors; and divert the
otherwise productive time of witnesses and other people.

Secondly, many people without money get sued. Your government does
it allthe time. Many people without money get sued by collection
agencies frequently. In the most recent legal paper in my town (and
most of the time), there were more of those types of cases than all
the others. I think most of those suits are a waste of time for the
reasons explained above, but as for "nuff said," you are wrong in your
fallacious premise that people without money don't get sued.

If you want an example of a legislative attempt to impose financial
responsibility for injuring others, consider the requirement in most,
if not all, states requiring mandatory liability insurance for car
owners and drivers. They recognize that some steps should be taken to
require pepole to be responsible (i.e. though insurance) to compensate
those they injure. In my state, if a person injures another, and
didn't have insurance or the means to pay the damage, they can lose
their license and be prevented from registering a vehicle until they
pay the damage.

skym wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:28 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
... We need to reform the system so that the only basis
for liability is wrongdoing, not the size of your pockets.

The only basis under US law is fault, except in certain strict
liability cases which are not involved here (e.g., release of
radioactive materials). I challenge anyone to find a law or jury
instruction that imposes liability based on a party's worth.

Tell me you aren't really this naive? If this had been a local mom and
pop coffee shop that had no liability insurance, do you really think a
jury would have made this award? Do you even think the lawyer would
have even taken the case? These cases and awards are DIRECTLY related
to the wealth of the defendant. This isn't by statue, I agree, but it
is de facto.

Matt

On Dec 9, 6:50 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Tell me you aren't really this naive? If this had been a local mom and
pop coffee shop that had no liability insurance, do you really think a
jury would have made this award? Do you even think the lawyer would
have even taken the case? These cases and awards are DIRECTLY related
to the wealth of the defendant. This isn't by statue, I agree, but it
is de facto.
Matt

They would have rendered the compensatory award. Certainly not the
punitive award, since mom and pop probably didn't have over 700 scald
cases in the prior years, or have conducted research and had prior
knowledge that the coffee was not fit for human consumption. In fact,
I'll bet that if mom and pop knew those things, they would have
lowered the temp. It's the fact that McD knew it and did nothing that
contributed to this result. The amount of punitive damages can be
based on worth and income, but not underlying liability for punitive
damages.

Don't know if an attorney would have taken the case. If mom and pop
had few assets, they could not pay the damage that the plaintiff
incurred, So why sue them? Would you, or would you enjoy putting
people into bankruptcy?

Also, juries aren't told whether the defendant has insurance, nor are
they typically told of the defendant's worth at trial. (Of course, I
agree that they all know that McDs is a large wealthy corporation.).
That is specifically to prevent juries from possibly being swayed by
that irrelevant fact in the liability phase of the trial..