Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?

No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.

They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.

No, they're not. A more fitting analogy, would be to a gun. As we have
all heard many times, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Regardless of whether you're a fan of that statement, I think the
logic matches well with lawyers and their clients -- to a degree.

To make your engineering analogy work, a better story would be the
client who specifically asked an engineer to design the building so
cheaply that it would start to fall to pieces shortly after his client
had sold it. [ As an aside, most engineers are members of associations
like IEEE or ASME that do have ethics codes that would prohibit
this. ]

Most lawyerly behavior is not really immoral so much as it is amoral.
They do their job, which is very clearly defined as serving their
clients. It's an issue that has been discussed at length by attorneys
over the ages, but in the US system, courts are adversarial: the
lawyer's job is zealously represent his client. He has no
responsibility to "truth" or "social benefit," etc. (I understand that
European courts are more fact-finding and solution-seeking than
American. Typically, European judges, for example, take a more
proactive stance in managing cases than in the US, where the judge
just plays referee.)

Now, lawyers, unlike guns are people, so should have some personal
sense of right and wrong, but they also have a responsibility to do
their jobs well. It puts them in a bit of a gray area.

I agree with most here that the lawsuits on aircraft companies for
crashes that are not their fault are deeply, deeply, problematic, I
don't think the solution is killing the lawyers or making them somehow
more "moral." (And of course, there's the little question of who's
morality are we talking about?)

The problem is the clients, their incentives, and *their* sense of
reponsibility and fairness.

-- dave j
-- not a lawyer, but an engineer

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:59:25 GMT, Jose
wrote in :


Become a meteorologist.

Or join the Bush administration. :-)

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...

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Most people don't have a clue if they should proceed or how much they
should ask for. This is all driven by the lawyer. Do you watch the
lawyer adds on TV? They constantly advertise about the size of the
awards they have earned for their clients and how they can do the same
for you.

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.

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

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Become a meteorologist.

Or join the Bush administration. :-)

even better: become a political analyst.

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

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:59:25 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

Become a meteorologist.

Or join the Bush administration. :-)


Or Al Gore. Or the Hilary team.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Most people don't have a clue if they should proceed or how much they
should ask for. This is all driven by the lawyer. Do you watch the
lawyer adds on TV? They constantly advertise about the size of the
awards they have earned for their clients and how they can do the same
for you.

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. :-)

Matt

Dave J wrote:
Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structural
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?
No - neither of those are reasonable analogies.
They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.

No, they're not. A more fitting analogy, would be to a gun. As we have
all heard many times, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Regardless of whether you're a fan of that statement, I think the
logic matches well with lawyers and their clients -- to a degree.

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.


To make your engineering analogy work, a better story would be the
client who specifically asked an engineer to design the building so
cheaply that it would start to fall to pieces shortly after his client
had sold it. [ As an aside, most engineers are members of associations
like IEEE or ASME that do have ethics codes that would prohibit
this. ]

Again, this only holds if the engineer suggested to the client that they
hire the engineer to design such a building. Again, I don't think this
happens much in the engineering profession (I am an engineer), but it
happens all of the time with lawyers. I see several TV ads EVERY time I
watch TV that encourage people to do exactly this.


Most lawyerly behavior is not really immoral so much as it is amoral.
They do their job, which is very clearly defined as serving their
clients. It's an issue that has been discussed at length by attorneys
over the ages, but in the US system, courts are adversarial: the
lawyer's job is zealously represent his client. He has no
responsibility to "truth" or "social benefit," etc. (I understand that
European courts are more fact-finding and solution-seeking than
American. Typically, European judges, for example, take a more
proactive stance in managing cases than in the US, where the judge
just plays referee.)

Now, lawyers, unlike guns are people, so should have some personal
sense of right and wrong, but they also have a responsibility to do
their jobs well. It puts them in a bit of a gray area.

Bingo. This is why your analogy to guns is so stupid and wrong.


I agree with most here that the lawsuits on aircraft companies for
crashes that are not their fault are deeply, deeply, problematic, I
don't think the solution is killing the lawyers or making them somehow
more "moral." (And of course, there's the little question of who's
morality are we talking about?)

For the record, I've never advocated killing lawyers, nor would I ever.
However, I do advocate a loser and loser's lawyer pays system more
akin to what exists in parts of Europe.

Matt

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:49:20 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Become a meteorologist.

Or join the Bush administration. :-)

even better: become a political analyst.


How many political analysis have been exposed fabricating their facts
compared to the number of journalists who have exposed the corrupt
practices of politicians?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

How many political analysis have been exposed fabricating their facts
compared to the number of journalists who have exposed the corrupt
practices of politicians?

who watches the watchers?

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