Gore, the Democrats, and trial lawyers -- sure, they'll like tort reform!

[AndrewR]

One issue that I haven't heard too much about is the ever-present but never implemented issue of tort reform, ie., limiting the amount of damages that can be awarded in personal injury cases (product liability, for example).

Personally, it's about damn time they started to limit what these blood sucking trial lawyers can win. Why is health care so expensive in this country that coverage for Americans has become a central issue in the campaign? Because doctors pay thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance since mercenary lawyers will soak them for millions should they make a calculated decision that might just be wrong. Gawd, to think doctors are human!

Now, I know that some doctors deserve to be legally assaulted for their actions, for deliberate cost saving or idiotic mistakes that are within the course of normal care. However, everyone in this country is paying for this, not just the doctors and their insurance companies. Lawyers walk away with millions just like their clients.

This type of case is only small part though. We need to pass some laws limiting the amount of fees that lawyers can charge. No person is worth $1000/hour, but that's what the limitation on legal fees was for lawyers on the Y2K problem (or it was proposed and rejected, cannot recall) -- and lawyers complained quite loudly!!!

So, if you elect Gore, you are guaranteed that there will be no tort reform in this country -- not after $100,000 and an endorsement from trial lawyers was cajoled by Gore. Are people comfortable with that? Since the law touches every aspect of our society, tort reform will, too. Isn't it about time we reigned in the predators that are reducing our society to the lowest common denominator for idiots who cannot realize that you shouldn't use a hair dryer in the bathtub?

NOTE: Not all lawyers are bad, but there is a definite class of them that leap to attack "deep pockets" at every opportunity, whether merited or not. Plus, since the regulation of lawyers is created by lawyers, there is never going to be any meaningful self-control in the profession even from Congress since a large portion of the representatives are lawyers anyway.

 

[Double Trouble]

Lets put it this way. According to the latest information I've seen, 68% of members of Congress are (or have been) lawyers (or have at least passed the BAR). In other words, the chances of them passing any laws that would make the judicial system more efficient at the expense of leaches......errrr.... lawyers deep pockets are slim to none. Ain't gonna happen, simple as that.

 

[Tominator]

Trial Lawyers are the Democrats biggest contributors!

I read that in Illinois there will be 250,000 lawsuits filled in this state alone in '2000!

 

[Fiddy]

Hmm, sounds to me like you boys need to read the ERISA statute. There you will find how wealthy insurance companies bought the legal system in 1974. So when you or someone you know is say, dying from cancer, and the insurance companies don't want to pay, see how much you like tort reform then. I know that there are alot of cases where attorneys and people abuse the system, but believe me, insurance companies are much, much worse. Really, read this, all of it, then we'll talk. Text

 

[Russ]

From the Forbes 400:

236 Jamail, Joseph Dahr Jr. 1,200 74 Houston Lawsuits

Pretty sad commentary.

Russ, NCNE

 

[AndrewR]

Fiddy: I am well aware of the ERISA statute, and I am also well aware of the general evil that resides in insurance companies. That being said, who is really to blame? Is it the insurance companies for being stingy with their (our) money, or is it the rabid plaintiff attorneys who sue at the drop of a hat, forcing insurance companies to spend thousands of dollars on worthless suits?

If I see another damn slip and fall case (probably will Monday), I'll puke. The concept of premises liability is ridiculous in the way it is litigated these days. Some idiot falls down stairs and blames the building owner???? Thousands of people walk those stairs every year without incident, yet someone blames a corporation in another city because they can't stay on their fscking feet. Even a worthless claim such as this causes a couple thousand dollars worth of legal fees -- some for the insurance company, some for the insured (if they have in-house legal). Each and every case like this.

One possible solution? Let's copy England and make the loser pay the bills. That's a long time coming, and it's so desperately needed. Create a rebuttal presumption that the loser pays unless there is considerable hardship (extreme cases) and/or the decision was a narrow one (heard on appeal and closely denied, etc.). If it was essentially a frivilous case, make the plaintiff and his/her attorney pay. Lawyers are under an ethical responsbility to represent their clients' best legal interests. Taking a frivilous case with no chance for success (unless on a settlement theory -- which is mercenary) is not within a client's interest. The lawyer should pay part of the cost of that action since they have breached an obligation to their client and to the bar.

My biggest problem with the system is that it encourages the lack of personal responsibility and ignores the reality that ACCIDENTS HAPPEN. If you fall on your face, even if there is some sort of depression in the ground (open your eyes), you are not entitled to money. I do not like that you were hurt, but you have to take care of yourself -- the world does not exist to coddle you from birth to death.

Further, when someone is injured, they expect that someone will pay them, even if their actions were the cause of the injury (holding a firecracker in your hand, for example). The spate of gun lawsuits is another example of the legal system gone mad. Cities are suing gun manufacturers because of the independent acts of criminals with weapons. Why do you hold a corporation responsible when someone else is pulling the trigger, the sale of guns is legal, and the actions of the person were illegal? These are the same types of people (the plaintiffs) who would probably be happy with a little sticker on the gun saying, "Only for legal use -- illegal use prohibited". I'm tired of seeing these idiot labels, and I personally think that if someone doesn't know you shouldn't stand on the very top of a 12 foot ladder, it comes down to a Darwinian pruning of stupidity from the gene pool.

Lawyers are allowing the human race to become less and less intelligent by protecting idiots!!

 

[Ferocious]

<< We need to pass some laws limiting the amount of fees that lawyers can charge. No person is worth $1000/hour, >>


Republican hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

'Let the free market decide prices and keep regulations or/and limits away.'

lol

 

[Russ]

Ferocious,

Apparently you are a little confused (surprise, surprise). That is a Libertarian plank, not a Republican plank. Republicans recognize that there must be some rule of law.

Russ, NCNE