In article , SteveF
says...

I used to work for an insurance claims adjusting firm and I think among my
all-time favorites was the home owner whose three year old thought the
ceiling fan blades going around was fascinating. So the guy holds the kid
up over his head who promptly holds his hand up and gets it broken when the
next blade comes around. Filed a lawsuit, our insured had us settle to make
them go away. Exactly where was the "cheapness, stupidity or arrogance" of
the ceiling fan manufacturer?

Blame the lawyers - they made a decision that it would cost less
to settle (odd that you don't mention the amount) the case than
to take it to trial. Sure a jury would laugh at the case, but
then there's a one prercent chance they would award something.

They might award $100K, and it might cost $10K to bring the
case to trial for an exoneration. So why not offer the 10
up front, says the lawyers. Your company said 'settle' I
suspect - after a bit of prodding from the insurance company.

If you want to 'fix' this (is it really broken??) then
first off you shoot all the lawyers. Then you shoot all the
insurance company execs (why spread risk? - if you find the at-fault
person, you pin it on them) and then you abolish the court
system.

Just remember though, you need consider the case where a
company really is negligent. So we make the CEO of the
corporation PERSONALLY LIABLE - remember, no insurance,
right? - for any damages. Pierce the corporate veil and
let folks who are really harmed recover from the individuals
concerned.

While we're shooting folks, we take the CEOs and CFOs out
and do the same to them as the lawyers, if they can't
pay out when they do wrong. Fair's fair here.

You'll see the company execs whining and blubbering for
their insurance safty net after all. But ONLY if it
benefits them.

Jim


No, don't blame the lawyers. They are only doing what they are paid to do.
Doesn't mean it's right, but that's their job. If they didn't push even the
groundless suits on behalf of their clients, they'd be sued by them.

Part of the blame falls on human greed, and there is not much that can be done
about that.

More of the blame belongs with our legal system, and with dumb juries. The
juries who, on looking at someone's injuries, decide on that basis rather than
on liability. Get smarter juries, who have the guts to say "You are a real
dumbass and that was a real dumbass lawsuit and you get nothing". And who have
the guts to then say "And because it was such a dumbass lawsuit, not only do
you get nothing, but you and your lawyer are going to have to pay the legal
expenses of the person you sued". And a legal system that will allow them to
do so.

Yeah, I've heard the arguments against that sort of system. The worry that
large corporations (such as the tobacco companies) would deliberately incur
astronomical legal expenses that would scare off anyone attempting to sue them.
But I'm not suggesting that the loser always pay - only when the lawsuit is
deemed frivolous and without merit.

Chasing ambulances when they have the right to stop and back over you wouldn't
be much fun.

John Martin