- Jun 27, 2002
- 2,908
- 0
- 76
I wish the United States had a "losers pay" tort system in which the loser of a legal case pays the court costs and representation fees (up to a certain point at least) for both sides. What do you think?
Sounds like a good plan.Originally posted by: ironwing
I think allowing judges to slap losers with court costs on a case by case basis makes some sense. I also think judges should be free to slap either or both sides for costs incurred by the court for BS cases. For example: corporations suing and counter suing each other over meritless patent-infringement cases where the whole purpose of the case is not to win but to slow down their competitors attempts to bring products to market.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Tort Reform.
Originally posted by: ironwing
Thank you for your deep insight. I know I've learned a lot.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Has to be case by case.
I agree.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Tort Reform.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Unless I miss my guess, all you mean is capping damages awards targeted at major companies. Or at least that's what "Tort Reform" seems to mean when Republicans say it. Which is great and all, but I think it does way more to unnecessarily help companies that don't need it instead of fixing any real problems with the legal system.
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Perhaps a better system would be one where the loser has to pay a certain amount of money to the other party, say a couple thousand dollars. This way there would still be a deterrent against frivolous cases but not enough of a deterrent to where worthwhile cases would never be brought.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Has to be case by case.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Has to be case by case.
That already exists - see for example Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11. Most state courts have a similar rule about frivolous pleadings, with possible monetary sanctions. Judges are reluctant to invoke it, however.
Originally posted by: ironwing
I think allowing judges to slap losers with court costs on a case by case basis makes some sense. I also think judges should be free to slap either or both sides for costs incurred by the court for BS cases. For example: corporations suing and counter suing each other over meritless patent-infringement cases where the whole purpose of the case is not to win but to slow down their competitors attempts to bring products to market.
Originally posted by: PingSpike
I actually liked that idea Edwards had in 2004, where the lawyers can only do like 5 really stupid cases and then they lose the right to file that type of case. Now hear me out, even if you hate Edwards! (He is pretty swarmy)
I think that basic idea, fleshed out, could work. You have to figure, that 90% of the lawyers are probably fairly normal...and then you've got a bunch of career ambulance chasers and "I stabbed myself in the eye with a pencil, where's my million bucks?" guys. Maybe you could give the judges discretion to stamp "totally retarded case, waste of court time" on each lawyers file when they file those kinds of cases. Then after say 5 of them or something, they're automatically disbarred. You have to have a reasonable minimum though to keep lawyers from not taking risky cases at all. And you could make it so each judge could only file one "retarded case" to any one lawyer, that way some judge with a vendetta couldn't do it every time the lawyer came before him. But if 5 or so judges or whatever label this guy nutwad then there's probably a good chance he is.