Tort Reform - Limit the courts and increase the power of the Presidency?

[Toronado3800]

Thank you for the example of the poorly targeted lawsuit.

My suggestion would be appoint or elect better judges. An oft forgotten responsibility. Judges do a fair amount of interpreting and allowing and disallowing straight up the line.

You need to leave caps off of law suits. Otherwise the likes of Leonard Little, a football player who killed a woman drunk driving, Ford who knew how much it would cost to fix the Pinto, and Toyota who was just embarassed ny their gas pedals can not be hurt by law suits which would bankrupt the rest of us.

 

[Oddball]

10Th Ammendment...... The one the Civil War overturned about states having every power the Founding Fathers did not explicity give the feds?

So Colorado can keep all their water and give none to welfare needy Arizona and New Mexico? I dont recall reading squat about that in the constitution. I suppose you could liberally use the general welfare clause to enforce water rights laws on Colorado. Darn closet liberals lol.

They could, if it were physically possible to dam up all the water that flowed out of the state.

You really don't have any idea of how water rights is a contact sport out west, do you, flatlander?

BTW...You probably also don't know (until now) that Colorado is the only state where all water flows out of, yet none into, do you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So everyone is for government control of how much the lives of your children are worth?

Remember, hospitals who do things wrong loose cases. It is very difficult to put a corporation in prison so you gotta hit it where you can, the bottom line. (think BP)

That is not the issue here. Tort reform would limit absurdly high awards for seemingly small offenses. Tort reform would also protect the lifetime earnings of those caught in situations not of their doing but happen to be the deepest pocket of the group.
For example.....Let's say you have a party at your home...You serve alcoholic bevs. One of your guests had arrived intoxicated did not drink while in your home and called it a night. He drives home and on his way, he runs off the road and causes someone to be severely injured. When questioned by the cops, the guest can only remember being at your place.
Later the injured party hires and attorney and gets a hold of the police report. The victim files a suit against the actual homeowner where he consumed and became drunk but beause he was in your home,the plaintiff sues you as well. This is a common practice by plaintiff's attorneys to go fishing for the deepest pockets. Even though you are not at fault, you must still defend yourself at great expense to your finances as well as your reputation. Now, with tort reform, you'd be more likely to be in the clear.
Personally I think these laws where one adult is responsible to regulate the behavior of another consenting adult while that adult is in your home is ludicrous.
A homeowner provides access to alcohol. He did not compel the person to take it. When the NJ legislature passed and the governor signed this law, I called it a "lawyer law"..A law designed by lawyers for the enrichment of lawyers
The way the system is set up, everyone is fair game in a lawsuit. It's just insane.

The problem we come to here is a familiar one.

Who gets to decide what lawsuits are "frivolous" and which are not? Who gets to decide how much money is enough to cover the emotional damage of a dead loved one?

I don't trust politicians to make those decisions.

 

[Oddball]

I don't trust politicians to make those decisions.

Uh-huh...But put that politician in a black robe, call him "your honor" and it's all good.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't trust politicians to make those decisions.

Uh-huh...But put that politician in a black robe, call him "your honor" and it's all good.

Someone's gotta make the decision. I'd rather it be someone who doesn't worry about re-election.

 

[Oddball]

Juries don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Yet authoritarian autocrats in black robes, who keep getting re-elected unopposed, keep telling jurors that they get to decide what the law says.

So much for your "choice".

 

[jillian]

Juries don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Yet authoritarian autocrats in black robes, who keep getting re-elected unopposed, keep telling jurors that they get to decide what the law says.

So much for your "choice".

juries are TOLD what the law IS...

they find facts because they don't know anything about the law.

i know that chafes you. bummer.

go to law school if you resent lawyers so much. maybe you'll figure out why things are done the way they are.

 

[mdn2000]

Hell. Looks like we need tart reform.....

Yea, and look at her teet.

 

[Oddball]

Juries don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Yet authoritarian autocrats in black robes, who keep getting re-elected unopposed, keep telling jurors that they get to decide what the law says.

So much for your "choice".

juries are TOLD what the law IS...

they find facts because they don't know anything about the law.

i know that chafes you. bummer.

go to law school if you resent lawyers so much. maybe you'll figure out why things are done the way they are.

Have the miscreants at Fully Informed Jury Association rounded up and jailed.

Arrest, try and convict their contributors as treasonous.

Go ahead....I dare you.

 

[jillian]

Have the miscreants at Fully Informed Jury Association rounded up and jailed.

Arrest, try and convict their contributors as treasonous.

Go ahead....I dare you.

gee... that responds to my point. like i care what they say...

i can say i should be a doctor because i know how to read the PDR... doesn't mean I know how to treat an illness.

got it?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Juries don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Yet authoritarian autocrats in black robes, who keep getting re-elected unopposed, keep telling jurors that they get to decide what the law says.

So much for your "choice".

So you'd rather your state legislature decide for you?

 

[Oddball]

Juries don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Yet authoritarian autocrats in black robes, who keep getting re-elected unopposed, keep telling jurors that they get to decide what the law says.

So much for your "choice".

So you'd rather your state legislature decide for you?

False dichotomy.

The common man, via the jury box, also has a say....Even though the corporate oligarchs in black robes have prevented them form exercising their full rights.

Look over the information and decide for yourself: Fully Informed Jury Association

Also, Google "Laura Kriho".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Juries don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Yet authoritarian autocrats in black robes, who keep getting re-elected unopposed, keep telling jurors that they get to decide what the law says.

So much for your "choice".

So you'd rather your state legislature decide for you?

False dichotomy.

The common man, via the jury box, also has a say....Even though the corporate oligarchs in black robes have prevented them form exercising their full rights.

Look over the information and decide for yourself: Fully Informed Jury Association

Also, Google "Laura Kriho".

And what does this have to do with tort reform?

 

[Toronado3800]

He is against tort reform and demands the common juror make more intelligent decisions I believe.

Often when I see my neighbors getting arrested I joke a jury of their peers will be a jury of idiots.

I will also agree judges should be held to higher standards or investigated further. ONCE I posted a judge's name on my bulliten board as a way of reminding me to vote against him. Didnt work. Before elections I visit the Missouri Bar website and search for others. I try to find who are the lowest 1/4 of the judges and vote them out. Scant info though.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tort limits....These are needed.

So do you want tort reform imposed at the federal level or are you content to leave it to the states to decide?

States rights.

 

[jillian]

Tort limits....These are needed.

So do you want tort reform imposed at the federal level or are you content to leave it to the states to decide?

States rights.

there doesn't need to be *tort reform*.

there are already remedies for frivolous suits.

and the states rights issue has already been disposed of.

 

[thereisnospoon]

10Th Ammendment...... The one the Civil War overturned about states having every power the Founding Fathers did not explicity give the feds?

So Colorado can keep all their water and give none to welfare needy Arizona and New Mexico? I dont recall reading squat about that in the constitution. I suppose you could liberally use the general welfare clause to enforce water rights laws on Colorado. Darn closet liberals lol.

The civil war did what?..I did not realize we no longer had a 10th Amendment.
No, a State may not invoke it's rights when those rights harm another state.
North and South Carolina just got finished burying the hatchet in a water rights case that was going to be heard in the US Supreme Court.
Rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution are not absolute.

 

[The Rabbi]

So do you want tort reform imposed at the federal level or are you content to leave it to the states to decide?

States rights.

there doesn't need to be *tort reform*.

there are already remedies for frivolous suits.

and the states rights issue has already been disposed of.

Yeah, you're right. We don't have a problem with lawsuits in this country. It isn't like liability insurance is through the roof and killing businesses.
Are you fucking nuts? Don't answer that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thank you for the example of the poorly targeted lawsuit.

My suggestion would be appoint or elect better judges. An oft forgotten responsibility. Judges do a fair amount of interpreting and allowing and disallowing straight up the line.

You need to leave caps off of law suits. Otherwise the likes of Leonard Little, a football player who killed a woman drunk driving, Ford who knew how much it would cost to fix the Pinto, and Toyota who was just embarassed ny their gas pedals can not be hurt by law suits which would bankrupt the rest of us.

Nope. Disagree. Money does not grow on trees and unjustly high settlements and awards hurt everyone. Especially consumers.
the McDonald's coffee lady is a fantastic and glaring example of the absurdities that do occur in the civil system..
This woman did nothing to protect herself from being injured and initially she was rewarded for her stupidity. Fortunately common sense prevailed and her award was whittled down to nothing. In fact the only people who made out were the lawyers. The plaintiff ended up with virtually nothing.
The insurance company paid out the settlement and of course that is added to the bottom line. Guess what? The insureds all will pay higher premiums.
Try finding a doctor that specializes in obstetrics. Oh, can't find one? Not surprised. Idiotic jury awards have run many doctors out of the baby business
How?....Woman goes to doctor. Doctor does tests on fetus. Finds problem. Tells mother. Mother finds lawyer and sues doctor because she feels the doctor is at fault for her unborn baby not being normal.
Or, doctor arrives to birth baby. The baby is a breach. Doctor does everything in his power to save baby and mother's life. Baby is deprived of oxygen and is brain damaged. Doctor's fault? No. Nature. Woman sues doctor anyway and jury weeps for retarded baby and gives the mother millions. Is that just? It's no one's fault but the doctor has to pay?
Oh....Criminal enters home to steal. Has gun. Homeowner has gun. Shoots intruder. Intruder is paralyzed. Intruder finds asshole lawyer sympathetic to criminal "victims" of what lawyer believes is "vigilantism".. Lawyer sues homeowner. Plaintiff loses suit but homeowner is left penniless defending suit. That's just?
Bottom line is the civil court system is out of control.

 

[jillian]

States rights.

there doesn't need to be *tort reform*.

there are already remedies for frivolous suits.

and the states rights issue has already been disposed of.

Yeah, you're right. We don't have a problem with lawsuits in this country. It isn't like liability insurance is through the roof and killing businesses.
Are you fucking nuts? Don't answer that.

g=d you're stupid. and much as i'd like to indulge your fantasies that you know anything about law, i'm not going to.

we don't have any particular issue with frivolous suits in this country. why would you want to deny compensation to people who are injured.by someone else's negiigence or recklessness?

to protect corporations from liability?

are you stupid?

don't answer that. it's rhetorical..