• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Now you can't sue gun manufacturers.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sec 2(2) might run into constitutional trouble but since it is a whereas as opposed to operative clause there might not be a basis for challenging it.

So have gun prices dropped yet? They should now that this cloud of liability has lifted off the industry. If you don't see a drop in gun prices you'll know the whole thing was political grandstanding.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Um, shouldn't everyone have the right to take a case to court? If the courts reject the argument, then fine.
Click to expand...

No. What's the point in this situation? If a law exists that says "X cannot be held responsible for Y", then what's the logic in even entertaining a suit that seeks damages from X for Y occuring?

We're trying to reduce stupid lawsuits and unecessary spending.....
 
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Um, shouldn't everyone have the right to take a case to court? If the courts reject the argument, then fine.
Click to expand...

No. What's the point in this situation? If a law exists that says "X cannot be held responsible for Y", then what's the logic in even entertaining a suit that seeks damages from X for Y occuring?

We're trying to reduce stupid lawsuits and unecessary spending.....
Click to expand...

No, the law stifles suits before it can be determined if the suits are "stupid".
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Um, shouldn't everyone have the right to take a case to court? If the courts reject the argument, then fine.
Click to expand...
This does not remove from anyone the right to take a case to court. It simply removes from them the ability to sue parties that are obviously not at fault, i.e. "nuisance suits."

You see, the US civil court system is screwed up by the fact that parties pay their own legal fees, which can be outrageous. It is often joked here that the only people who ever make money in court are the lawyers (a joke that is also very close to the truth). Unfortunately, this gives unscrupulous lawyers the incentive to file frivilous lawsuits against "deep pocket" parties, simply as a way to extract money. Think of it as legal extortion. "Settle and pay me money or I will tie you up on the courts for years, costing you millions in legal fees."
That is the issue here. Personally, I think that rather than this legislation we should switch to the European model where the loser, whether plaintiff or defendent, pays the other party's legal costs. That would give wrongly-sued parties the incentive to fight rather than settle, and discourage the filing of frivilous suits in the first place.
Click to expand...

Nice :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Nik
We need a law for this?
Click to expand...
Sadly, the lawyers (especially those that wear robes and sit on benches) forced us into this. You see, when some monetarily-poor psychopath kills someone and goes to prison, lawyers get a very limited revenue stream. Sure, the state pays them a bit for the criminal trial, but no lawyer makes millions that way. And suing the psychopath in civil court on behalf of the family of the victim would be like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. Hence, the lawyer invention of the "deep pockets" concept. Sue the wealthiest party involved and force them to pay, simply because they can, even if their actual negligence was non-existent.
Click to expand...

Yep, and 99% of the time companies will settle out of court rather than risk going to trial which will cost hundreds of thousands or even millions.
 
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Um, shouldn't everyone have the right to take a case to court? If the courts reject the argument, then fine.
Click to expand...

No. What's the point in this situation? If a law exists that says "X cannot be held responsible for Y", then what's the logic in even entertaining a suit that seeks damages from X for Y occuring?

We're trying to reduce stupid lawsuits and unecessary spending.....
Click to expand...

No, the law stifles suits before it can be determined if the suits are "stupid".
Click to expand...

Because in situations such as this, the law is perfectly capable of making the determination itself. There's no stifling.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Um, shouldn't everyone have the right to take a case to court? If the courts reject the argument, then fine.
Click to expand...
This does not remove from anyone the right to take a case to court. It simply removes from them the ability to sue parties that are obviously not at fault, i.e. "nuisance suits."

You see, the US civil court system is screwed up by the fact that parties pay their own legal fees, which can be outrageous. It is often joked here that the only people who ever make money in court are the lawyers (a joke that is also very close to the truth). Unfortunately, this gives unscrupulous lawyers the incentive to file frivilous lawsuits against "deep pocket" parties, simply as a way to extract money. Think of it as legal extortion. "Settle and pay me money or I will tie you up on the courts for years, costing you millions in legal fees."
That is the issue here. Personally, I think that rather than this legislation we should switch to the European model where the loser, whether plaintiff or defendent, pays the other party's legal costs. That would give wrongly-sued parties the incentive to fight rather than settle, and discourage the filing of frivilous suits in the first place.
Click to expand...

I like that, but what happens if I have a legitimate lawsuit, but end up losing due to the defendant's $10 million team of lawyers? Is my financial life ruined because my lawyer wasn't as good as I thought?
 
Originally posted by: isasir
Now if they can pass law that bartenders and bar owners can't be sued if a dumbfvck drinks and drives and kills someone...
Click to expand...

Has that acctually happened?

Thats just stupid
 
Remember that McD's would be liable if it put addictive substances into its products (assuming said substances were illegal) because they were a party to the activity. But they shouldn't be sued if someone buys their coffee, then goes outside and tosses it into someone's face.
 
Originally posted by: newParadigm
Originally posted by: isasir
Now if they can pass law that bartenders and bar owners can't be sued if a dumbfvck drinks and drives and kills someone...
Click to expand...

Has that acctually happened?

Thats just stupid
Click to expand...

Not only have these types of suits taken place and won by victims of the drunk driver but in many states a bartender who knowingly let a drunk drive could face criminal prosecution.
 
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I like that, but what happens if I have a legitimate lawsuit, but end up losing due to the defendant's $10 million team of lawyers? Is my financial life ruined because my lawyer wasn't as good as I thought?
Click to expand...

Sue your lawyer. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Um, shouldn't everyone have the right to take a case to court? If the courts reject the argument, then fine.
Click to expand...
This does not remove from anyone the right to take a case to court. It simply removes from them the ability to sue parties that are obviously not at fault, i.e. "nuisance suits."

You see, the US civil court system is screwed up by the fact that parties pay their own legal fees, which can be outrageous. It is often joked here that the only people who ever make money in court are the lawyers (a joke that is also very close to the truth). Unfortunately, this gives unscrupulous lawyers the incentive to file frivilous lawsuits against "deep pocket" parties, simply as a way to extract money. Think of it as legal extortion. "Settle and pay me money or I will tie you up on the courts for years, costing you millions in legal fees."
That is the issue here. Personally, I think that rather than this legislation we should switch to the European model where the loser, whether plaintiff or defendent, pays the other party's legal costs. That would give wrongly-sued parties the incentive to fight rather than settle, and discourage the filing of frivilous suits in the first place.
Click to expand...

What I don't get is why would any judge allow a suit with zero negligence shown to even move forward. Judges have the power to throw all this crap out right?

As for loser pays I agree 100% but the elite don't want it either. Works both ways. Rich trail lawyers and Microsoft and others sues hundreds of "upstarts" a year as intimidation. The RIAA is even an extorsion scheme.
 
link to hamburger bill that fat people cant sue mcdonalds... something like a personal responsibility bill?

link?

Edit:
found it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top