On 30 Jul 2004 06:29:26 GMT, (JMartin957) wrote:
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.

You've got that right. I was on a jury recently. The settlement demanded
was obviously inflated beyond belief, but when we got in the jury room the
first thing discussed was how much we should award, and they were talking
6 figures. I was outraged, and made that *very* clear to the other jurors. It
took a lot of talking, but I finally got them to reduce the award to actual
proved cash losses, about $1500.

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.

Georgia recently passed a frivolous lawsuit bill. It calls for treble damages to
be paid by the parties bringing the frivolous suit, but only the judge can impose
it. Judges are *very* reluctant to do so (they're part of the same club as the
lawyers).

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

Heh, heh.

Gary