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

[thereisnospoon]

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.. How many lawsuits have you filed? Does the clerk of your county superior court know you on a fist name basis?
Usually most people who favor the status quo never hesitate to avail themselves of the ability to sue.

 

[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.. How many lawsuits have you filed? Does the clerk of your county superior court know you on a fist name basis?
Usually most people who favor the status quo never hesitate to avail themselves of the ability to sue.

i can't remember ever suing anyone on my own behalf, actually.

but i know a little about how suits are filed.

i like the status quo because it's fair. and because unlike the "oh my gosh, the sky is falling" pretend reformists who want to do insurance company bidding, i don't want to see injured people denied compensation.

who don't you want to see sued? and what standard should be set? right now judges decide if a suit is friviolous...which is as it should be.

or is it doctors you want to protect? in which case i'll tell you that in most jurisiictions people have to go through a merit panel before they're allowed to commence a suit for malpractice.

if i recall correctly frivolous suits constitute about 2% of insurance company expenses.

but you're an insurance company's best friend if you think they shouldn't have to pay for injuries that were negligently caused.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 ******* 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..

Ok hysterical flamer....Here's the deal. No one is claiming companies should be shielded from monetary damages. Nor is anyone implying a negligent person should not be held liable and along with that subject to monetary penalty.
Tort reform limits wards to what is reasonable. Tort reform restores common sense to the civil court system.
BTW, the largest problem with the civil system IS frivolous lawsuits.
If there were no clogged dockets full of cases where people sue each other over trivialities such as video game consoles and noisy dogs, real lawsuits with merit would not sit for years until they are heard.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.. How many lawsuits have you filed? Does the clerk of your county superior court know you on a fist name basis?
Usually most people who favor the status quo never hesitate to avail themselves of the ability to sue.

i can't remember ever suing anyone on my own behalf, actually.

but i know a little about how suits are filed.

i like the status quo because it's fair. and because unlike the "oh my gosh, the sky is falling" pretend reformists who want to do insurance company bidding, i don't want to see injured people denied compensation.

who don't you want to see sued? and what standard should be set? right now judges decide if a suit is friviolous...which is as it should be.

or is it doctors you want to protect? in which case i'll tell you that in most jurisiictions people have to go through a merit panel before they're allowed to commence a suit for malpractice.

if i recall correctly frivolous suits constitute about 2% of insurance company expenses.

but you're an insurance company's best friend if you think they shouldn't have to pay for injuries that were negligently caused.

No..The system is patently unfair.
The civil courts and the laws allow anyone to sue for just about any perceived slight or injury.
The unjust part comes when a suit with no merit is filed and the defendant must go into his pocket to pay an attorney to defend himself. At the end of the day, any suit where the plaintiff loses is frivolous.
Who does the defendant see about that? How is he compensated for his loss? No one ,especially those who support open season to sue, wants to think about that. All they care about is their perception that the courts are their own personal lottery terminal
The plaintiff most likely hired an attorney who worked on a contingency. The plaintiff is out nothing. The defendant could be ruined.
That is an unfair system. Now if the plaintiff had to compensate the defendant for his expenses in the even the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff may think twice before running to court every time he hears his neighbor fart.
I am not interested in protecting negligent individuals or companies.
I don't care about protecting the insurance industry.
I want this system to function as though it were run by intelligent people who use common sense.
Now, if that upsets you, then be upset. I do not care.

 

[The Rabbi]

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 ******* 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..

I see I am dealing with a nincompoop but maybe someone with 2 functioning brain cells will read this as well.
No one is talking about denying people legitimately injured the ability to recover legitimate damages. The tort lawyers all want to talk about letting BIG EVIL CORPORATIONS GET AWAY WITH MURDER. It's bullshit. The tort lawyers are the ones getting away with murder. People acting like idiots and blaming someone else and wanting money. Juries awarding it because they felt sorry for the plaintiff, not because there was any justice involved.
We have a big problem. Out of control lawsuits represent a tax of billions of dollars a year in profits foregone and high liability insurance rates. Ultimately the consumer pays for all that. The only ones really benefitting are lawyers. I mean real ones, not poseurs like you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 ******* 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..

I see I am dealing with a nincompoop but maybe someone with 2 functioning brain cells will read this as well.
No one is talking about denying people legitimately injured the ability to recover legitimate damages. The tort lawyers all want to talk about letting BIG EVIL CORPORATIONS GET AWAY WITH MURDER. It's bullshit. The tort lawyers are the ones getting away with murder. People acting like idiots and blaming someone else and wanting money. Juries awarding it because they felt sorry for the plaintiff, not because there was any justice involved.
We have a big problem. Out of control lawsuits represent a tax of billions of dollars a year in profits foregone and high liability insurance rates. Ultimately the consumer pays for all that. The only ones really benefitting are lawyers. I mean real ones, not poseurs like you.

This jillian chick has credibility issues. She stated that "if I recall( LMFAO) frivolous lawsuits accounted for just 2% of insurance payouts"....That's paraphrased.
Umm,. Question....why would an insurance compnay pay out a settlement on a frivolous suit?
It would seem to me that a frivolous suit would be dismissed....
Jeez..Some of these people while trying to make an argument will go to great lengths to make complete anal puckers of themselves

 

[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.

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.

I agree with your examples being dead on ridiculous law suits. Suppose we disagree about the best solution.

 

[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.

I agree with your examples being dead on ridiculous law suits. Suppose we disagree about the best solution.

the system is broken. Unfortunately lawyers are the ones who make laws. They will do nothing that will cause apparent harm to their colleagues.
So we continue to see ridiculous suits brought and judges too sensitive to public outcry and too aware of the fact that they once were at the table in the courtroom, continue to allow these cases to be heard.