Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

After an injury on a business trip (and 14 days in the hospital), I
received
dozens of letters and cards from lawyers wanting to represent me.

You must be mistaken, Bob, as BDS says that simply isn't going to happen
given the high integrity and ethics of the American Lawyer. :-)

Must have been the painkillers... :-/

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Matt, I don't understand the intensity of your rhetoric. There is no
reason to call anybody stupid because you disagree with them. In fact,
our disagreement is, in my opinion, not as great as you seem to think.

Like all people, some lawyers will "do the right thing" and some will
not. If you, as a client, are looking to do the wrong thing, you will
always be able to find legal assistance from someone. The primary
incentive is still with the client, who, despite the lawyer's take,
still stands to gain handsomely, with little or no risk of his own.
(This is actually better than the attorney working on a contingent
basis, who will invest his own time and stands to lose at least his
own investment.)

I do not agree that people are somehow not aware of the potential
spoils they can get out of the legal system without the lawyers
advertising. Well, some probably need the advertising, most certainly
do not. Heck, after hospital and crime dramas, courtroom dramas are
probably the next most popular TV show format. If you don't have a
clue how the system works, you have to have been living under a rock.

Finally, I fully agree that the incentives to sue are too great. The
risk/reward equation for the dabbling plaintiff is not appropriate.
The trick is to create a system that allows serious cases to go
through while discouraging garbage suits.

You believe that loser-pays would accomplish this. I, and many here
are suggesting that loser-pays may discourage the garbage, but it will
also discourage some serious cases. Your assertion that people with
valid claims always win and so need not worry about paying is only
true if you define validity based on the outcome. I believe reality
says otherwise; sometimes the wrong party loses.

Here's a variation on a theme other posters have mentioned: limit the
damages that the plaintiff can collect, but do not limit the damages
that defendant may have to pay, with the difference going to the
state, or some special victim's fund, or you can take the money out
back and burn it -- it really doesn't matter.

The important thing is that potential plaintiffs and their attorneys
have much less to gain -- diminishing their incentive to play, and
potential defendants still have a strong incentive to avoid being
asked to play.


-- dave j

Bob Noel writes:

Must have been the painkillers... :-/

In that case you can sue the pharmaceutical companies instead. They have more
money than the companies building small aircraft, anyway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bear,

You see the surrounding of the Lake of Lucerne with small (private) and
big aerial passenger tramways. This obstacles are all defined in the
database of Flarm.


Yes, but...

Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
level of information?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Matt Whiting" wrote

After an injury on a business trip (and 14 days in the hospital), I
received
dozens of letters and cards from lawyers wanting to represent me.

You must be mistaken, Bob, as BDS says that simply isn't going to happen
given the high integrity and ethics of the American Lawyer. :-)

What Matt is missing here is that there was no lawsuit despite the fact that
the lawyers tried their best to make one happen. The reason - there was no
plaintiff.

BDS

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Really? I've never had any of my guns talk to me and suggest I go out
and shoot someone. Lawyers are all the time trying to talk clients into
hiring them to sue someone. Bzzt! Please try again.

I agree that the lawyers in some of these cases are partially to blame and
have said that from the start.

It's sad though to see you defending people who can be so easily swayed to
lie and cheat if there is a little easy money involved, and that if someone
else was able to talk them into it, they are not then responsible.

The way it should be is that each of us is responsible for our own actions,
regardless of what someone tries to convince us to do, and especially if we
know that what they are suggesting is dishonest and immoral.

BDS

BDS schrieb:

However, ultimately it is up to the
individual to decide whether their honesty is worth giving up for a pay out.

If somebody came to me and told me that I could win a couple of millions
with a silly liability suit... would I do it? If this would mean the
bankrutpy of somebody else, I hope not... But if it were "only" an
insurances money? Frankly, I fear I would take the chance to solve a
couple of my financial problems. Yes, most certainly I would. Call me
corrupt, and I agree. It's easy to not be corrupt if you have enough
money. It's far more difficult if you struggle.

So don't blame the individuals, they're just weak humans. Blame the
system that offers them the opportunity. To both, the attorney and the
plaintiff.

Where I live, you can't make a fortune with such lawsuits. Maybe, if
you're lucky, you get a couple of thousand dollars, but that's it. Not
really worth the effort. And for the attorney it's forbidden to work on
a percentage basis, he just bills his time, so no fortune there, either.

Of course our system has some drawbacks, too, but that's another thread.

(BTW,this is the most civilised discussion I've read in this group for a
long time, as OT as it is.)

Stefan

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

Who flies close enough to the ground for these obstacles to be a factor?
Gliders, yes. Any powered aircraft? I hope not. So how many need this
level of information?

And here the flatlander speaks. I invite you to fly through the alps
with an underpowered light single. Until then, just believe that of
course the gliders *must* fly there, working helicopers must, too, and
all those light singles which fly through the valleys and want that
safety option to make a 180.

I can point you to a couple of accident reports where the pilots (mostly
flatlanders like you) didn't apply this safety tactic and ended in the
rocks. And then, there are a couple of accident reports of those who
applied the correct tactic and ended in a wire.

Stefan

In article ,
Stefan wrote:

[snip]
So don't blame the individuals, they're just weak humans. Blame the
system that offers them the opportunity. To both, the attorney and the
plaintiff.

It doesn't need to be one or the other. Blame them all, the money-grubbing
lawyers, the money-grubbing plaintiffs, and the whole corrupt system.

--
Bob Noel
(trimming must be too hard...)