The Chuck Norris Law - Loser Pays

[chanel]

Two women get into a fight in the ladies’ restroom at a restaurant. Afterward, they sue the restaurant owner, claiming someone should have been in there to break up the fight. It costs the small-business owner $2,000 to pay each plaintiff to drop the complaint, which was cheaper than fighting the lawsuit would have been.

This completely ridiculous story is true, and the restaurant owner was one of us, Mr. Norris. Fortunately, the lawsuit didn’t cripple the family restaurant, Woody’s Wharf in Newport Beach, Calif. But nationwide, groundless lawsuits strain businesses’ bottom lines and threaten their very survival.

This week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a law that will help free Lone Star State businesses from the threat of frivolous lawsuits by enacting “loser-pays” tort reform. Prior to the legislation, litigants faced a no-lose situation, while defendants stood to lose everything—even for the most outrageous, bizarre and wrongful accusations.

A roundhouse kick to frivolous lawsuit « Hot Air

About time...

Comments?

 

[sparky]

deeper pockets will find a way to turn any good intent on it's ear Chanel......

 

[chanel]

True. But isn't that how our justice system works now?

We have been victims of two frivolous lawsuits. One was dismissed and one is pending. In the first suit, our insurance co. just wanted to settle. My husband would not agree, and sure enough, the liar/plaintiff never showed up at court.

In the pending case, we got swept up in one of those "sue everybody" situations. Even the plaintiff apologized to my husband, but said it was her lawyer's strategy. Perhaps we should countersue the lawyer.

This could be a model for the entire country. We can no longer trust our judges to throw out the bullshit. It's a shame that they've become part of the problem. But then again, they are lawyers too. Just like most of our politicians.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Since most frivolous law suits are filed by broke dumb-asses, I like the idea of the court costs being paid by the attorney who files the losing suit. Perhaps they'd be pickier about which clients they represent.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Two women get into a fight in the ladies’ restroom at a restaurant. Afterward, they sue the restaurant owner, claiming someone should have been in there to break up the fight. It costs the small-business owner $2,000 to pay each plaintiff to drop the complaint, which was cheaper than fighting the lawsuit would have been.

This completely ridiculous story is true, and the restaurant owner was one of us, Mr. Norris. Fortunately, the lawsuit didn’t cripple the family restaurant, Woody’s Wharf in Newport Beach, Calif. But nationwide, groundless lawsuits strain businesses’ bottom lines and threaten their very survival.

This week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a law that will help free Lone Star State businesses from the threat of frivolous lawsuits by enacting “loser-pays” tort reform. Prior to the legislation, litigants faced a no-lose situation, while defendants stood to lose everything—even for the most outrageous, bizarre and wrongful accusations.

A roundhouse kick to frivolous lawsuit « Hot Air

About time...

Comments?

What about frivolous criminal prosecution? or is this just for business?

 

[KissMy]

I think the plaintiff should get 1 or 2 free losses in a lifetime because when someone screws you bad enough you may not have the resources to fight back. It would also be unjust to the poor. We need to crack down on the ones who constantly file BS lawsuits hoping to hit the jackpot. After 2 losses the loser pays.

 

[chanel]

The intended purpose of Texas' "loser pays" law is to dissuade residents from filing low-merit lawsuits; arguably, fewer people will risk paying the defendant's legal fees if there is little chance of winning.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses places tort litigation costs for small businesses at about $105 billion annually, a third of which is paid by business owners themselves, reports the National Review.

Theoretically, if Texas' "loser pays" law leads to fewer tort lawsuits overall, small business owners should see a drop in those numbers. This would be especially true of small, but costly lawsuits that are backed by little evidence.

However, the law still leaves room for the filing of these suits.

'Loser Pays' Reform a Win for Texas Small Business? | Reuters

 

[George Costanza]

"Loser pays" has been with us a long time. Whenever you sign a contract, read the fine print. Almost all contracts have a loser pays clause in them which provides that if there is any litigation over the performance of the contract, loser pays the winner's attorney's fees and court costs.

 

[George Costanza]

Two women get into a fight in the ladies’ restroom at a restaurant. Afterward, they sue the restaurant owner, claiming someone should have been in there to break up the fight. It costs the small-business owner $2,000 to pay each plaintiff to drop the complaint, which was cheaper than fighting the lawsuit would have been.

This completely ridiculous story is true, and the restaurant owner was one of us, Mr. Norris. Fortunately, the lawsuit didn’t cripple the family restaurant, Woody’s Wharf in Newport Beach, Calif. But nationwide, groundless lawsuits strain businesses’ bottom lines and threaten their very survival.

This week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a law that will help free Lone Star State businesses from the threat of frivolous lawsuits by enacting “loser-pays” tort reform. Prior to the legislation, litigants faced a no-lose situation, while defendants stood to lose everything—even for the most outrageous, bizarre and wrongful accusations.

A roundhouse kick to frivolous lawsuit « Hot Air

About time...

Comments?

As I read this, the only person who can be adversely affected by it is the plaintiff. What about the defendant? Suppose someone brings a (brace yourselves, conservatives) meritorious lawsuit and WINS. Does the defendant have to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs of suit? Golly, I didn't read that anywhere in this new law down there in TX.

So what this looks like to me is simply another attack on negligence litigation by those who are opposed to negligence litigation, i.e., Republicans.