Thread: Mans Intelligence

Originally Posted by Bruno

I r

But in a system where people can use lawsuits as a 'rich quick' scheme, they have to be coddled because that is the only way for manufacturers to get from being sued.
People have to held by their hands because if they aren't, they will start suing as soon as something happens.

I think you put the cart before the horse here Bruno! I believe that because people are coddled ( oh poor baby you didn't do anything. it's everybody elses fault) that we have rampant suing!

Originally Posted by JMS

I think you put the cart before the horse here Bruno! I believe that because people are coddled ( oh poor baby you didn't do anything. it's everybody elses fault) that we have rampant suing!

Actually, I think it is in large part due to the fact that in the US (and in the UK now as well?) it is legal for lawyers to charge a % of the claims money.
So a good lawyer can rake in millions. They just sue every time, and if they win some cases, they get big bucks.

I once asked a lawyer over here about that, and he told me that that would be illegal in Belgium.
You have to pay your lawyer for his time (or not if pro bono) regardless of the result, and he cannot ask for a share.

This keeps the lawyers honest, and discourages frivolous lawsuits because it WILL cost you money to sue so you will only do so if you are sure you have a case.
If you get sued and you win then you can ask for compensation of legal fees, but I don't know how that is decided.

As for the person filing the suit: judges usually award only the real monetary damages, and only a limited amount of compensation for moral damage.
So even if you win, you will not be rich. If you sue because a cleaner burnt your pants, you get the price of the pants. Not millions in moral damage.

So Bruno,

How is access to the legal system provided for those of limited funds? Is the legal system only reserved for the wealthy, since they are the only ones with the money to pay the lawyer, as well as their living expenses? Is Pro Bono work required of every lawyer? If so, then is pro bono work required for all professions?

I know this is a tangent to the thread, and I appologize, but I have to ask.

Originally Posted by JMS

Do we give enough credit for human kinds intelligence?
I believe we do not! it seems to me that governments, well meaning people, and some not so well meaning are trying to protect us from ourselves as if we were little toddlers who couldn't think for ourselves or understand whats going on around us. Quite honestly I resent this attitude!

For the most part, I don't think they are trying to protect us from ourselves at all... they're trying to protect themselves from the consequences of our actions. Take, for example, the MC helmet laws... in the 45+ years I've been riding the helmet law reasoning always seems to ultimately come down to protecting me so I won't become a burden to them ("them" being the insurance companies and, ultimately, society). The reasoning always nets out that if I crash and my injuries leave me in a vegetative state... I become a ward of the state and society has to pay my expenses (and the corollary, my family will become a ward of the state too, due to my loss of income). In reality, it's my insurance company that will incur a large payout... up to my policy limit, then I become a burden to society. The fact is, no one (other than perhaps my friends and family) cares one iota about me per se... they're only concerned about protecting their wallets (meaning the insurance company and the social services). And so it goes with most other examples... the icy sidewalk, the knee pads for inline skaters, etc.

Now, the fact is I have always chosen to wear a helmet when I ride... to protect me, to reduce my insurance rates, and to try not to become a burden to my family or society if I crash... and I have never needed a law to tell me that's the smart thing to do. However, when I'm getting ready to ride, I like to straddle my bike (which is still on the side stand) and start it to let it warm up a bit while I zip the cuffs of my jacket, put on my gloves, etc. The last thing I want to put on before I take off is my helmet, particularly in warm weather. Likewise, when I park and am getting ready to shut it down, I often times will take of my gloves and helmet before I actually put down the side stand and shut down the engine. Well, while touring in another State one day I actually received a ticket for "riding w/o a helmet". I had pulled into a diner for a rest stop for a bite to eat and was getting ready to leave. I had just started the bike and was putting on my gloves when a State Trooper nailed me... when I protested that the bike wasn't moving, so how could I be "riding w/o a helmet" he told me I should never even sit down on the bike w/o having already put on the helmet. What a hard a$$.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Actually, I think it is in large part due to the fact that in the US (and in the UK now as well?) it is legal for lawyers to charge a % of the claims money.
So a good lawyer can rake in millions. They just sue every time, and if they win some cases, they get big bucks.

I once asked a lawyer over here about that, and he told me that that would be illegal in Belgium.
You have to pay your lawyer for his time (or not if pro bono) regardless of the result, and he cannot ask for a share.

This keeps the lawyers honest, and discourages frivolous lawsuits because it WILL cost you money to sue so you will only do so if you are sure you have a case.
If you get sued and you win then you can ask for compensation of legal fees, but I don't know how that is decided.

As for the person filing the suit: judges usually award only the real monetary damages, and only a limited amount of compensation for moral damage.
So even if you win, you will not be rich. If you sue because a cleaner burnt your pants, you get the price of the pants. Not millions in moral damage.

Belgium's system seems much more fair to me than what goes on in the USA. If the USA could reform monetary awards to something reasonable (eg, actual out-of-pocket expenses + perhaps a reasonable amount for pain and suffering, instead of millions) things would be a lot better. Also, if the person who sues and looses had to pay court costs + defendant attorney's fees, there would be a lot fewer "frivolous" lawsuits.

AZ

In colorado we have this. It is called a statutory offer of settlement. This works by the Defendant giving a "statutory offer" of some amount. if the plaintiff does not take it, and goes to tial, then they has better get a verdict greater than the amount offered. If the verdict is less than what is offered, then the plaintiff has to pay for all of the attorney's fees from the date of the offer forward. It is a great tool in negotiating a settlement.

I see how it could help in many circumstances, but it's not clear how it helps eliminate defendant costs for blatantly frivolous lawsuits. In those cases it would seem it simply forces the defendant to offer up something rather than go to trial and (hopefully) win? I'm thinking of the case where the "big bully" company repeatedly sues the "little guy" company with a plethora of frivolous suits, the hidden agenda being to bankrupt him with legal defense fees. Can't big bully still bankrupts him simply by accepting statutory offers instead? Where's the motivation for big bully to stop harassing the little guy altogether? What I was proposing was if it went to trial and big bully loses, he has to pay all of little guy's legal costs.

A "Loser Pays" legal system could also work against you.

If "Big Bully" wins, you could really be screwed.

Originally Posted by honedright

A "Loser Pays" legal system could also work against you.

If "Big Bully" wins, you could really be screwed.

True... it's a risk either way, I guess. Does big bully win many of the frivolous suits? I (perhaps naively) thought he usually dropped/settled the case if it appeared little guy would actually go to trial. And then sue little guy again on some other frivolously thing... all with the intent of forcing little guy to expend his (relatively) limited resources on defense and settlement costs instead of product development, marketing, etc.

How about we all dress in hemp clothing, grow really long hair, stop shaving and grow really large beards, ban private ownership of all property, only use biodiesel for fuel, and sing Kum Ba Yah while holding hands around a campfire.

I mean really, the private ownership of property is what causes the problems in the first place. If no one owned anything, then there would be no "keeping up with the Joneses." There would be no lawsuits because there would be nothing to sue over. We could just turn everthing over to the benevolant government.

no really, what options are there for allowing access to the legal system for the poor. The USA does it through the contingent fee system. If you force the parties to pay, then only the rich can afford legal action.

If you require the lawyers to allocate so many hours for pro bono work, then why not also force electricians to wire so many houses for the poor, and mechanics to fix at least 5 cars per year for individuals which cannot afford it. Why should lawyers be forced to work for free, for the poor, when other professions are not?

If you are worried about the big bad corporation from dominating the smaller corporation with legal fees, then the "each party pays their own" system is the worse. There has to be a balance between it all.

Sorry, I did not mean to hijack this thread.