How About Tort Reform.................

[Emmett]

Once upon a time there was a single dad from Georgia who collected all his pocket change for years while raising his son alone in a world that was not used to this arrangment. Women got sympathy, this fellow got " I wonder what he did to that woman to make her give him that child!"

After many years of commuting, little league, PTA and a stint as Booster Club president mixed with the sacrifice of not being able to work at jobs he would have rathered the guy raised his little son to High School age. All the while he woulkd continue to stowe his pocket coins left over from lunch and collective barter deals built around his 200 maybe 300 and something dollar a week jobs. He never remarried for he saw his responsibility to be finishing what he started.

Finally one day after dreaming for years what he would do with his windfall of pocketchange, he decided to count the loot. His young son was now a teenager and the fellow could now start a business since things like everyday breakfast, overseeing schoolbus stops and Little League were in the past. Wow! 1737.40!!!!!!! That's Seventeen Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and Forty cents. Now all he needed to do was think of a business he could start on his own and try to gain prosperity for himself and his young son.

While raising his son he had worked part time as a bounty hunter! Nah! Also a Repoman!

He thought up name, spent 1500.00 on a down payment for overpriced insurance, welded a makeshift repo rig into the back of his pick up and wa-lah!

Many years and 5 million dollars later the Repoman had 5 offices throughout the southeast and was doing very well. The weeks were long and the job was dangerous, he'd been insulted, shot at, chased in cars, thratened and God knows what else but he was prosperous! The company had 15 Repotrucks, 27 employees and were servicing most all the Major market Auto Lenders.How about that?

Then one day in December 2002 one of his company's agents encountered a car that the company had been looking for for over a year. It was a first payment default in Montgomery, Alabama. It was a great job on the part of the agent to have finally found this unit being that not one payment had ever been made on this brand new car.

Footnote: The American consumer pays 34% of the purchase price of an automobile to recoup costs the companies incur as a result of people not paying for what they buy.

The agent made one fatal mistake! He was nice! After encountering the young man in the car he noted there was a small child with him. The young man pleaded to allow him to take (his sister's) car back to her apartment so he could get (his) stuff out and drop off the child. The agent agreed to follow him.

The young man drove off at speeds over 80 mph and 2 miles away he crashed the car and killed himself! The child was hurt too.

The young man had no drivers license.
The child was wearing no seat belt!
The young man was polluted with crack cocaine in his system!
There was no insurance on the car.
There was an open container of beer in the front seat!

A young female police officer witnessed the accident and said that the repoman was nowhere in sight when the car crashed!

The Repoman lost everything he had by being forced to settle the lawsuit because of well..........the ethnic representation of the jury would have guarenteed a decision for the plantiff who sued the Repoman for Wrongful Death!

Somehow two of the young man's cousins convienantly witnessed the accident....and the chase.....and the meeting at the store where the repoman's agent encountered the young man. Aunt Martha told what a wonderful young man he was and how he always helped his mother, was a star student (wasn't true) and cried as she was deposed by the Plantiff's attorney. ( who got 30% )

The Repoman was helpless. The Lending Institution (one of the largest in the world) used many efforts to influence the Repoman to allow his insurance company to settle the lawsuit. In their opinion it was fruitless to fight even a frivilous suit because the jury would award regardless. No one loves the Repoman they said.

Well.............needless to say, the Repoman has no company anymore. As a matter of fact he has very little. It is hard to pay off debts of building a business with no income. You can't have income when you can't get insurance. You can't get insurance when you have had a wrongful death judgement against you or even an accusation for that matter. It all goes on your claim record.

Never mind that the car was not being paid for. The fact that the young man was a known crack dealer and user and was polluted with the stuff when he ran from the repoman. Never mind that the agent did not chase him, or that the young man drove 80 mph thru a residential neighborhood with a 6 yr old (unbelted) in the car and crashed. Never mind that YOU paid for that car with the price of your new car.

At least the young man's parents and sister are filthy rich now!!!!!!!!!!

LIMIT AWARDS IN CIVIL CASES TO MAXIMUM INSURANCE LIABILTIES!

Did the Repoman deserve to lose everything he worked for through the years while raising his son to save his 1737.40?

THIS IS A TRUE STORY! TRUST ME!

 

[Emmett]

I couldn't think of a better way to make a point than to tell the story itself. It is true and it happened to me! I can't mention names of course because of the settlement terms. I'm not even suppose to talk about it.

At 44, I lost everything I had because of this "incident".

I promise no more tear jerkers on this site as yall know I like humor instead but I thought maybe an example tied to someone real might help get my point across.

How many green dots do I get for a piece of my soul?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Sorry. Emmett. That must be hard to take.

 

[Emmett]

Oh sweetheart, it's OK. You see, because we live in America I and anyone else can bounce back>

These types of things can happen because our politicians are spending their time arguing over who leaks worthless information to the biased press. Personally, there isn't anything going on up there on the hill today that made the press this weekend that I give a damn about. I want emphasis on things like what happens to innocent hard working folks who lose because legislature's time is spent pissing and whining about the other instead of concentrating on the peopkes business.

Frankly, I say fire them all. For 10 years, vote for no incumbants. Do rollover primaries and completely change the face of our government. I assure you the next batch will understand they arfe there to do the business of the peopke and not argue over petty stuff.

It makes no sense for a person to be ruined over the actions of another. I believe only personal liability should be assured anyway. Of course I am a Libertarian and that is the way we think.

I only put the story there so people could read truth. It ois a shame that it can happen.

As for me, I'm OK. I'm building another company from scratch. I'm a little older and tired but I am no quitter. Much like the American spirit. True Americans love an underdog story. This is the greatest place to live in the world. American people are good people! When the chips are down we rise rto the occasion. I hope the little story inspires just one person to think about it and to think that it could haooen to a fellow AMerican. If it stays on their mind it will breed to others through debate and who knows, maybe get the attention of someone who matters.

The American spirit is strong. Look at the folks who sit on this site night after night trying to drive home their ideaology. Left or Right they are the soul of American Philosophy. We are never going to agree about everything. Never will everybody agree about anything. It is our right to fight intensly from both sides to hammer home our points and try to bring things a little closer to our side one agenda item at a time. It is what our soldiers have fought and died for.

Like Zell said - A soldier follows and fights for a flag so that it can be burned by those he defends! It can't work any other way. God knows for what reasoin someone would want to burn one but they have that right.

Personally I hate seeing people insult the president in public. However theyhave the right . The complexity by which our system contributes so many angles of belief into one basic idea of Freedom is hard to interpret at times. Heck in our country one power hands total control over to another in a peaceful process after all the arguing is over on Inaguration Day.

I am working hard to overcome the hit my family took but because I live here I have the chance to. I even have the chance to try and make a difference in the future to see a day when it can not happen to another guy. This is when I have to take my SIDE in the issue. Democrats can't keep thinking that there is an endless bag of money in hard working folks' pockets to support all the folks in the church van on the way to the poles to vote. Sooner or later it has to change!

Don't feel sorry for me! I appreciate you, you very sweet. Instead, write your congressman tomorrow and other state rep's and tell them how you disagree with this system than can allow such a thing to happen. that's how we change it! God Bless

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm sorry to hear about your plight.

I have always been in favor of sensible tort reform. Your story just makes it that much more clear that I'm correct in my thinking.

 

[Annie]

Wow Emmett, personal stories are the ones that get folks attention. Unless I'm off base, the beginnings of tort reform start at the state level. Illinois, has for years been at the forefront of giving huge awards. Three counties down in Southern Illinois in particular. People were finding reasons to have their cases moved from other locales to these three, lawyers knowing that the awards would be much higher.

A few years ago, small companies, such as doctors, lawyers, beauty salons, etc., started to leave the state. Reason? Insurance rates. The juries consistently were awarding and defendents settling at the limits and above insurance limits. Our politicians are corrupt here, no doubt. Also smart or feral enough to smell where the money is going. They instituted enough reforms and limitations to stop what could have become a flood.

Insurance companies too should be forced to fight when the insured hasn't done anything to deserve the case. Most of us have been lucky enough not to have walked in your shoes. But most of us have been or know someone who has been in a car accident, not our fault, with someone that is willing to claim all sorts of injuries and damages. The insurance companies, stung I'm sure by juries, usually just 'settle'. Wouldn't happen if you didn't carry insurance or were underinsured. That's just wrong.

Your optimism and level of hard work will help you overcome the obstacles that have whacked ya! Yours is a telling and inspirational story! Glad you are here.

 

[KarlMarx]

Emmett, I am very sorry to hear about your loss.....

The ones that get rich are the lawyers.... as I said many times on this board before, something has to be done about tort reform....

The standard of proof in civil cases is much lower than it is for criminal cases. That is unjust.

Liability claims amount to 200 billion dollars a year. Those liability claims are often times passed down to the consumer. In a 10 Trillion dollar economy, such as ours, 200 billion dollars translates into 2 cents on each dollar. So in effect, we all pay a 2% tax on every dollar we spend for liability claims.

 

[Hobbit]

I become more and more in favor of tort reform every time I look at product packaging, like a heat gun that reaches temperatures of over 1000 degrees that has the warning: Not to be used as a hairdryer.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

LIMIT AWARDS IN CIVIL CASES TO MAXIMUM INSURANCE LIABILTIES!

Sweet. This means if I cause a wreck that totals a $100000 car and puts a whole familiy in a wheelchair the rest of their life, I only have to pay $20000! Awesome! Seems fair to me.






You should have gone to trial. You can't lose more than everything, anyway, and if the facts are really as you prevent them, even if a jury found against you, there's no way it would hold up on appeal.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The standard of proof in civil cases is much lower than it is for criminal cases. That is unjust.

There's a reason for that.

Liability claims amount to 200 billion dollars a year. Those liability claims are often times passed down to the consumer.

Oh no, not the all holy consumer! Certainly, we must not allow those who have been screwed over to seek damages, as this will pass itself down to the consumer! If a chemical company pollutes your backyard and gives you cancer, why should they have to pay? Afterall, what is your individual life really worth compared to low prices for every comrade?

 

[KarlMarx]

There's a reason for that.

what?

Oh no, not the all holy consumer! Certainly, we must not allow those who have been screwed over to seek damages, as this will pass itself down to the consumer! If a chemical company pollutes your backyard and gives you cancer, why should they have to pay? Afterall, what is your individual life really worth compared to low prices for every comrade?

I'd like to what your attitude would be if got sued, ST... apparently you haven't been... yet.

Before you start, ST, keep in mind that the lawyers get 30-40% of the award. At $200B a year, that translates into $60B-$80B for the legal industry each year. And the legal industry is using the money it collects to find new cases to litigate, more deep pockets companies to sue.

Companies don't always get sued because they did something wrong. But, they always get sued because they have "deep pockets".

Litigation is one reason that flu vaccines were in short supply last year, it is the reason that many doctors are exiting the profession and leaving many people, especially women, without access to medical care, it is the reason why medical costs are going up at 3-5 times the rate of inflation year in and year out, it is part of the reason that jobs are leaving our country. Many lawyers "fish" for cases on television. This trend is not sustainable, it isn't healthy for our society.

I am not advocating removing the ability to sue, but it must be fair and not a cash cow for the legal industry at the expense of the rest of society.

 

[Mr. P]

....
You should have gone to trial. You can't lose more than everything, anyway, and if the facts are really as you prevent them, even if a jury found against you, there's no way it would hold up on appeal.

Crap! I agree with Spidy, you should have gone to trial, and if your attorney told you not to, you should have sought a second opinion. After all, everything was on the line (apparently) right?

On the other hand, maybe you had a good attorney and the plaintiff had ya by the nuts, but you failed to give us ALL the information. :huh:

 

[archangel]

Once upon a time there was a single dad from Georgia who collected all his pocket change for years while raising his son alone in a world that was not used to this arrangment. Women got sympathy, this fellow got " I wonder what he did to that woman to make her give him that child!"

After many years of commuting, little league, PTA and a stint as Booster Club president mixed with the sacrifice of not being able to work at jobs he would have rathered the guy raised his little son to High School age. All the while he woulkd continue to stowe his pocket coins left over from lunch and collective barter deals built around his 200 maybe 300 and something dollar a week jobs. He never remarried for he saw his responsibility to be finishing what he started.

Finally one day after dreaming for years what he would do with his windfall of pocketchange, he decided to count the loot. His young son was now a teenager and the fellow could now start a business since things like everyday breakfast, overseeing schoolbus stops and Little League were in the past. Wow! 1737.40!!!!!!! That's Seventeen Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and Forty cents. Now all he needed to do was think of a business he could start on his own and try to gain prosperity for himself and his young son.

While raising his son he had worked part time as a bounty hunter! Nah! Also a Repoman!

He thought up name, spent 1500.00 on a down payment for overpriced insurance, welded a makeshift repo rig into the back of his pick up and wa-lah!

Many years and 5 million dollars later the Repoman had 5 offices throughout the southeast and was doing very well. The weeks were long and the job was dangerous, he'd been insulted, shot at, chased in cars, thratened and God knows what else but he was prosperous! The company had 15 Repotrucks, 27 employees and were servicing most all the Major market Auto Lenders.How about that?

Then one day in December 2002 one of his company's agents encountered a car that the company had been looking for for over a year. It was a first payment default in Montgomery, Alabama. It was a great job on the part of the agent to have finally found this unit being that not one payment had ever been made on this brand new car.

Footnote: The American consumer pays 34% of the purchase price of an automobile to recoup costs the companies incur as a result of people not paying for what they buy.

The agent made one fatal mistake! He was nice! After encountering the young man in the car he noted there was a small child with him. The young man pleaded to allow him to take (his sister's) car back to her apartment so he could get (his) stuff out and drop off the child. The agent agreed to follow him.

The young man drove off at speeds over 80 mph and 2 miles away he crashed the car and killed himself! The child was hurt too.

The young man had no drivers license.
The child was wearing no seat belt!
The young man was polluted with crack cocaine in his system!
There was no insurance on the car.
There was an open container of beer in the front seat!

A young female police officer witnessed the accident and said that the repoman was nowhere in sight when the car crashed!

The Repoman lost everything he had by being forced to settle the lawsuit because of well..........the ethnic representation of the jury would have guarenteed a decision for the plantiff who sued the Repoman for Wrongful Death!

Somehow two of the young man's cousins convienantly witnessed the accident....and the chase.....and the meeting at the store where the repoman's agent encountered the young man. Aunt Martha told what a wonderful young man he was and how he always helped his mother, was a star student (wasn't true) and cried as she was deposed by the Plantiff's attorney. ( who got 30% )

The Repoman was helpless. The Lending Institution (one of the largest in the world) used many efforts to influence the Repoman to allow his insurance company to settle the lawsuit. In their opinion it was fruitless to fight even a frivilous suit because the jury would award regardless. No one loves the Repoman they said.

Well.............needless to say, the Repoman has no company anymore. As a matter of fact he has very little. It is hard to pay off debts of building a business with no income. You can't have income when you can't get insurance. You can't get insurance when you have had a wrongful death judgement against you or even an accusation for that matter. It all goes on your claim record.

Never mind that the car was not being paid for. The fact that the young man was a known crack dealer and user and was polluted with the stuff when he ran from the repoman. Never mind that the agent did not chase him, or that the young man drove 80 mph thru a residential neighborhood with a 6 yr old (unbelted) in the car and crashed. Never mind that YOU paid for that car with the price of your new car.

At least the young man's parents and sister are filthy rich now!!!!!!!!!!

LIMIT AWARDS IN CIVIL CASES TO MAXIMUM INSURANCE LIABILTIES!

Did the Repoman deserve to lose everything he worked for through the years while raising his son to save his 1737.40?

THIS IS A TRUE STORY! TRUST ME!

however there are pros and cons to every story...as a former law enf ofcr I can tell ya it is a judgement call made in the micro second...to be hard ass and give no quarter is usually the best policy..however I once gave quarter with very postive results...while working the Mexican Border my partner and I pulled over a suspicious vehicle...inside were three very youthfull gringos returning from Mexico..they were very nervous and conscented to a vehicle search...well we found a large baggie of MJ...we asked the young men what they thought this was...tequilla maybe?...they admitted they put their money together to impress friends of their ability to pull it off! We asked them if they learned their lesson of failure...they started to cry like babies and begged for forgiveness and said they would lose their scholarships to college...we said... if we let you go will you never again attempt this stupid prank..they agreed they would, and said they were very stupid...so being that it was a windy day we let the MJ hit the wind and return to the desert...a couple of years later I received a letter from one of the youths I let go...he said he graduated from Medical School and thanked me for giving him another chance...he also said he never touched the the weed again after the incident in the desert...it was a judgement call at the moment...it could have turned out different...luckily it did not for me and my partner..so who really knows how things will eventually turn out....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what?





I'd like to what your attitude would be if got sued, ST... apparently you haven't
been... yet.

Well, obviously, since being sued is an unpleasant experience, we should outlaw it.

Obviously, you've never had a petrochemical company spill chemicals in your front yard.


[/QUOTE]
Before you start, ST, keep in mind that the lawyers get 30-40% of the award.

That's the going market rate. Many cases take thousands and thousands of hours of labor and millions of dollars in cost and years and years of work -and then in the end you might not get a penny out of it. Are you suggestig that lawyers fees be determined by the government, kind of like the communists would do? Because that would surely ensure that poor people can no longer sue the big corporations when they dump chemicals in their backyard, because it wouldn't be worth it for the lawyers to pursue such a case for such a rate.

Do you believe that if your husband dives into a hotel swimming pool and is electrocuted to death, simply for swimming in the pool, you should get nothing for it? And if you do get something for it, do you think the lawyer who spends the money and puts in the work do get it for you should get paid nothing?

At $200B a year, that translates into $60B-$80B for the legal industry each year. And the legal industry is using the money it collects to find new cases to litigate, more deep pockets companies to sue.

It is not legal for a lawyer to solicit a private citizen for a particular case. They may make general advertisements, and may advertise for the purpose of forming a class, but the overwhelming majority of cases involve a potential client making contact with the lawyer of their choice.

Furthermore, no defendant is ever ordered to pay any damages without due process of the law.

Companies don't always get sued because they did something wrong.

Then they will win their case in those cases. And if the case is frivolous they can countersue for attorney's fees. I fail to see your point.

But, they always get sued because they have "deep pockets".

Are you suggesting lawyers should spend more time filing suits against people who have no money?

Litigation is one reason that flu vaccines were in short supply last year, it is the reason that many doctors are exiting the profession and leaving many people, especially women, without access to medical care, it is the reason why medical costs are going up at 3-5 times the rate of inflation year in and year out, it is part of the reason that jobs are leaving our country.

No it is no. While litigation may be a large factor in certain specific areas of medicine, overall, the cost of malpractice as a percentage of insurance costs is 2%-5%.

Many lawyers "fish" for cases on television. This trend is not sustainable, it isn't healthy for our society.

Are they not allowed to advertise their services?

I am not advocating removing the ability to sue, but it must be fair and not a cash cow for the legal industry at the expense of the rest of society.

Lawyers work very hard for their money. One must go to school for 3 years and invest often in excess of $100,000 in student loans (on top of whatever your undergrad degree cost). Just taking the bar exam typically cost on the order of $1000. Many then go on to work in firms in which 80 hour work weeks are not uncommon. Often, a single big case might take literally thousands and thousands of hours of work hours by multiple lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries, and in the end it may not pay out a dime. The legal profession isn't anything like it is portrayed on TV, it is not glamorous (though many lawyers fancy themselves as glamourous individuals <g>) - it is thousands of hours of grunt work, all for a few tense hours in court, which may amount to a big fat zero. And then even when you win, the other side might appeal, which could mean you still don't get paid, or even if you do, it could take years. I personally know someone who has invested a major portion of his working life into one case, over a decade of work, where the plaintiffs are people who were nearly burned to death due to the negligence of a big company, and he won it at first, then it was overturned on appeal, then he brought it to the state supreme court and it still hasn't been decided yet but if he loses its literally millions of dollars and thousands of hours down the toilet. If he wins he's likely to be able to retire on it (though he won't) - but shouldn't he be able to? If a businessman were to invest millions of dollars over 10 years for something so risky as it might not pay out one single dime, should the benefit of winning be tremendous?



The fee a lawyer charges is determined by the market just like any product or service. There are some lawyers who will only charge a 25% fee - go ahead, try using one of these lawyers see how well you do.

 

[manu1959]

Well, obviously, since being sued is an unpleasant experience, we should outlaw it.

Obviously, you've never had a petrochemical company spill chemicals in your front yard.

Before you start, ST, keep in mind that the lawyers get 30-40% of the award.

That's the going market rate. Many cases take thousands and thousands of hours of labor and millions of dollars in cost and years and years of work -and then in the end you might not get a penny out of it. Are you suggestig that lawyers fees be determined by the government, kind of like the communists would do? Because that would surely ensure that poor people can no longer sue the big corporations when they dump chemicals in their backyard, because it wouldn't be worth it for the lawyers to pursue such a case for such a rate.

Do you believe that if your husband dives into a hotel swimming pool and is electrocuted to death, simply for swimming in the pool, you should get nothing for it? And if you do get something for it, do you think the lawyer who spends the money and puts in the work do get it for you should get paid nothing?

It is not legal for a lawyer to solicit a private citizen for a particular case. They may make general advertisements, and may advertise for the purpose of forming a class, but the overwhelming majority of cases involve a potential client making contact with the lawyer of their choice.

Furthermore, no defendant is ever ordered to pay any damages without due process of the law.

Then they will win their case in those cases. And if the case is frivolous they can countersue for attorney's fees. I fail to see your point.

Are you suggesting lawyers should spend more time filing suits against people who have no money?

No it is no. While litigation may be a large factor in certain specific areas of medicine, overall, the cost of malpractice as a percentage of insurance costs is 2%-5%.

Are they not allowed to advertise their services?

Lawyers work very hard for their money. One must go to school for 3 years and invest often in excess of $100,000 in student loans (on top of whatever your undergrad degree cost). Just taking the bar exam typically cost on the order of $1000. Many then go on to work in firms in which 80 hour work weeks are not uncommon. Often, a single big case might take literally thousands and thousands of hours of work hours by multiple lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries, and in the end it may not pay out a dime. The legal profession isn't anything like it is portrayed on TV, it is not glamorous (though many lawyers fancy themselves as glamourous individuals <g>) - it is thousands of hours of grunt work, all for a few tense hours in court, which may amount to a big fat zero. And then even when you win, the other side might appeal, which could mean you still don't get paid, or even if you do, it could take years. I personally know someone who has invested a major portion of his working life into one case, over a decade of work, where the plaintiffs are people who were nearly burned to death due to the negligence of a big company, and he won it at first, then it was overturned on appeal, then he brought it to the state supreme court and it still hasn't been decided yet but if he loses its literally millions of dollars and thousands of hours down the toilet. If he wins he's likely to be able to retire on it (though he won't) - but shouldn't he be able to? If a businessman were to invest millions of dollars over 10 years for something so risky as it might not pay out one single dime, should the benefit of winning be tremendous?

The fee a lawyer charges is determined by the market just like any product or service. There are some lawyers who will only charge a 25% fee - go ahead, try using one of these lawyers see how well you do.

are you an attorney? law school? and did the dump the chemicals in the fron or the back yard......because if you don't get you story straight you will probably lose you lawsuit....what type of chemicals did the dump?....why were they at your house.

oh and you can be sued without grounds and have to defend yourself and then you may even get to settle for large sums without due process.....

oh before you tell me i am full of shit, you may wish to find out what i do for a living.

 

[Mr. P]

Shut the hell up Spider...I'm agreeing with you more.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Before you start, ST, keep in mind that the lawyers get 30-40% of the award.


are you an attorney? law school? and did the dump the chemicals in the fron or the back yard......because if you don't get you story straight you will probably lose you lawsuit....what type of chemicals did the dump?....why were they at your house.

oh and you can be sued without grounds and have to defend yourself and then you may even get to settle for large sums without due process.....

oh before you tell me i am full of shit, you may wish to find out what i do for a living.

I know many lawyers. I know one who does environmental law. One of the cases we had down here in Louisiana a few years back, though it wasn't his case, involved a spill at tank farm which resulted in the drainage ditches in peoples front yards being filled with benzene - which as you know is extremely carcinogenic. The company did nothing to clean it up until they got sued. There are many cases involving environmental damage done by large corporations. A company is responsible for its operations, even if they are unintentional, just like I have to pay you for your car if I wreck it, even if I didn't mean to.

oh and you can be sued without grounds and have to defend yourself and then you may even get to settle for large sums without due process.....

You can also be falsely accused of a crime and be stuck with a public defense attorney who will advise you to plea out because he has no time to take your case to trial. Settling is not a lack of due process. You are not required to settle any case.


There are many things that suck about not having enough money to pay for things in this country.






Unless you lied in your profile, you are an architect. So what? Congratulations.




You keep harping on about the 30%-40%. That's called "market price". Its a price determined by this wonderful thing we have here in America called the "free market". You are free to sue on your own behalf for FREE if you please! Or you can find some washed up good for nothing lawyer who will do it for 20% if you want, but you won't win.

 

[William Joyce]

Lawyers work very hard for their money. One must go to school for 3 years and invest often in excess of $100,000 in student loans (on top of whatever your undergrad degree cost). Just taking the bar exam typically cost on the order of $1000. Many then go on to work in firms in which 80 hour work weeks are not uncommon. Often, a single big case might take literally thousands and thousands of hours of work hours by multiple lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries, and in the end it may not pay out a dime. The legal profession isn't anything like it is portrayed on TV, it is not glamorous (though many lawyers fancy themselves as glamourous individuals <g>) - it is thousands of hours of grunt work, all for a few tense hours in court, which may amount to a big fat zero. And then even when you win, the other side might appeal, which could mean you still don't get paid, or even if you do, it could take years. I personally know someone who has invested a major portion of his working life into one case, over a decade of work, where the plaintiffs are people who were nearly burned to death due to the negligence of a big company, and he won it at first, then it was overturned on appeal, then he brought it to the state supreme court and it still hasn't been decided yet but if he loses its literally millions of dollars and thousands of hours down the toilet. If he wins he's likely to be able to retire on it (though he won't) - but shouldn't he be able to? If a businessman were to invest millions of dollars over 10 years for something so risky as it might not pay out one single dime, should the benefit of winning be tremendous?



The fee a lawyer charges is determined by the market just like any product or service.

First of all, nobody forces anyone to be a lawyer. So let's not go weepy over the tough life of lawyers. They choose to go in to a profession that is widely and deeply hated, often for very good reason. Currently, FAR too many are going into this 'profession', which at present levels is destroying American wealth, not creating it. People become lawyers in the hopes of prestige, wealth, and being shitty to others. A few seek to push a radical liberal agenda down our throats. The rest go into politics. Is it any wonder they're despised?

Second, SpidermanTuba is WRONG to say that lawyers are market-controlled. In fact, they are the only profession that is NOT market-controlled: they can decide to invoke government power, coercive in every respect, whenever and however they want. The other side does not agree to be sued.

That's at least one reason why tort reform is badly needed.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Currently, FAR too many are going into this 'profession', which at present levels is destroying American wealth, not creating it.

If too many people are becoming lawyers then the market will force them to get other jobs. We live in a free market economy. There can be no more lawyers than the market will support.

People become lawyers in the hopes of prestige, wealth, and being shitty to others.

My fiance became a lawyer so she could help poor people. She gets paid not much more than a starting teacher gets paid.

A few seek to push a radical liberal agenda down our throats. The rest go into politics. Is it any wonder they're despised?

They are despised because most of them make good money. And people bitch about them constantly until they need one. When someone causes an accident you are in and you are left with thousands of dollars in property and medical damages, and their insurance refuses to pay, who are you going to call? A lawyer. If you're husband dives into a swimming pool at a hotel and is electrocuted to death and you are left without his income and four kids to support, who are you going to call?

Second, SpidermanTuba is WRONG to say that lawyers are market-controlled. In fact, they are the only profession that is NOT market-controlled: they can decide to invoke government power, coercive in every respect, whenever and however they want. The other side does not agree to be sued.

Lawyers cannot sue people without plaintiffs. Only a judge or jury can enact government power. A plaintiff who wishes to sue someone may choose any lawyer they please. This is what is called a free market.


"they can decide to invoke government power,"

You don't even have a clue about what you are talking about, are you? Only judges and juries can invoke government power, a lawyer, except for DA's, have no authority granted to them by the people.

That's at least one reason why tort reform is badly needed.

Why? Because you shouldn't be able to sue someone for damages unless they agree its OK for you to sue them?? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Or because you think the legislature should decide ahead of time how much you are owed for the wrong done to you, years or decades before the wrong is actually done to you?


Now if you are saying that perhaps punitive damages should not be paid to plaintiffs but should be paid to the government - that's an idea. Afterall, a punitive damage is something in excess of what the defendant actually owes the plaintiff.