Tort reform, anybody?

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.

Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?

WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Here Ill make it simple.

Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.

Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.

Maybe if comapny A, B and C didn't all make deadly products they wouldn't be getting sued.

:roll:

Yeah and Dow Corning made a deadly(or harmful) product(breast implants). That didnt stop them from being put into bankruptcy from the billions in judgements they had against them.

You shouldnt be allowed to claim Y injury was caused by products 1 2 3. Or atleast civil defense attonerys SHOULD be allowed to enter that in to the trial.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.

Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?

WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Here Ill make it simple.

Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.

Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.

Maybe if comapny A, B and C didn't all make deadly products they wouldn't be getting sued.

:roll:

Yeah and Dow Corning made a deadly(or harmful) product(breast implants). That didnt stop them from being put into bankruptcy from the billions in judgements they had against them.

You shouldnt be allowed to claim Y injury was caused by products 1 2 3. Or atleast civil defense attonerys SHOULD be allowed to enter that in to the trial.

You should be able to present other theories about how the person recieved injury Y, but weather or not he sued, is sueing, or settles is irrelavent.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.

Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?

WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Here Ill make it simple.

Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.

Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.

Maybe if comapny A, B and C didn't all make deadly products they wouldn't be getting sued.

:roll:

Yeah and Dow Corning made a deadly(or harmful) product(breast implants). That didnt stop them from being put into bankruptcy from the billions in judgements they had against them.

You shouldnt be allowed to claim Y injury was caused by products 1 2 3. Or atleast civil defense attonerys SHOULD be allowed to enter that in to the trial.

You should be able to present other theories about how the person recieved injury Y, but weather or not he sued, is sueing, or settles is irrelavent.

Its stupid to allow people to claim they are injured by one product. Then allow them to sue another product over the same injury. Someone winning a suit over the same injury is logically relevant. The court system isnt logical...

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.

Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?

WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Here Ill make it simple.

Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.

Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.

Maybe if comapny A, B and C didn't all make deadly products they wouldn't be getting sued.

:roll:

Yeah and Dow Corning made a deadly(or harmful) product(breast implants). That didnt stop them from being put into bankruptcy from the billions in judgements they had against them.

You shouldnt be allowed to claim Y injury was caused by products 1 2 3. Or atleast civil defense attonerys SHOULD be allowed to enter that in to the trial.

You should be able to present other theories about how the person recieved injury Y, but weather or not he sued, is sueing, or settles is irrelavent.

Its stupid to allow people to claim they are injured by one product. Then allow them to sue another product over the same injury. Someone winning a suit over the same injury is perfectly relevant.

Both products could contrubut to the injury and both could qualifie for punitive damages. The result of other lawsuits are irrelevant because what those 12 people decided is not evidence that your product did not cause harm.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.

Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?

WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Here Ill make it simple.

Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.

Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.

Maybe if comapny A, B and C didn't all make deadly products they wouldn't be getting sued.

:roll:

Yeah and Dow Corning made a deadly(or harmful) product(breast implants). That didnt stop them from being put into bankruptcy from the billions in judgements they had against them.

You shouldnt be allowed to claim Y injury was caused by products 1 2 3. Or atleast civil defense attonerys SHOULD be allowed to enter that in to the trial.

You should be able to present other theories about how the person recieved injury Y, but weather or not he sued, is sueing, or settles is irrelavent.

Its stupid to allow people to claim they are injured by one product. Then allow them to sue another product over the same injury. Someone winning a suit over the same injury is perfectly relevant.

Both products could contrubut to the injury and both could qualifie for punitive damages. The result of other lawsuits are irrelevant because what those 12 people decided is not evidence that your product did not cause harm.

Punitive damages aside, it shows that you've already been compensated for your injury.

I am all for compensation of actual damages caused. I am even in favor of punitive damages when a company intentionally keeps a dangerous product on the market. I do oppose a plaintiff collecting punitive damages, or an attorney basing compensation off punitive damages collected.

If I had my way, a plaintiff could be made whole, attorneys fees paid and then punitive damages would be awarded to a noninterested third party. For example, if a faulty product caused a heart attack, punitive damages could be awarded to the American Heart Association.

This both allows companies to be punished for their misdeed and it also restricts frivolous suits because the attorney and plaintiff won't collect on punitive damages.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.

Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?

WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Here Ill make it simple.

Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.

Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.

Maybe if comapny A, B and C didn't all make deadly products they wouldn't be getting sued.

:roll:

Yeah and Dow Corning made a deadly(or harmful) product(breast implants). That didnt stop them from being put into bankruptcy from the billions in judgements they had against them.

You shouldnt be allowed to claim Y injury was caused by products 1 2 3. Or atleast civil defense attonerys SHOULD be allowed to enter that in to the trial.

What if injury "Y" really WAS caused by each of products 1, 2 and 3? That is a possibility, you know. People should have the right to take such a case to court.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It must be the NyQuil. Otherwise, it's difficult to comprehend how Bush goes to sleep at night.

Faulty medical devices, medical errors, unsafe drugs, and toxins (asbestos, MTBE) MAIM and KILL people. Tort cases reduce corporate profits. The people pushing tort reform are either incredibly immoral or morons . . . granted I'm willing to give Bush both.

The protections Bush wants to offer for prescription drugs is one of the worst ideas EVER! The FDA drug approval process is NOT designed to PROVE a drug is broadly safe and effective. It merely demonstrates the drug is statistically better than nothing and isn't terribly dangerous under certain conditions. Drug companies ALWAYS have more information at their disposal than they provide to FDA. Despite the recent high profile "disasters", Big Pharma still has research data (proof of NO efficacy and proof of substantial health risks) on APPROVED drugs that have not been released to the FDA or general public. Why would you give blanket protections under those circumstances??

Now for medmal, I personally believe in unlimited economic damages, $1M (inflation adjusted) as a max punitive penalty, and attorney fees capped at 25% (paid by defendant in ADDITION to economic damages). But I believe the same system should also impose caps on liability insurance.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Now for medmal, I personally believe in unlimited economic damages, $1M (inflation adjusted) as a max punitive penalty, and attorney fees capped at 25% (paid by defendant in ADDITION to economic damages). But I believe the same system should also impose caps on liability insurance.

I don't agree with the $1 million punitive penalty, that is small change for large corporations.

What is meant by liability insurance?

 

[PatboyX]

i seem to remember reading that so-called "frivolous lawsuits" tend to be filed by companies against other (generally smaller) companies and individuals.
too bad i cant find it now and it means nothing.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How is it fair, that someone with an asbestos claim, can sue over asbestos, then sue over other products they "may have been exposed to" all on the same "injury" or lack there of. You dont have to be damaged by asbestos to win a claim, and then you can go on and sue other companies, and win again without being damaged.

Would you mind trying that again in comprehensible English? :roll: Do you have any links or examples of whatever it is you were trying to say?

WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Here Ill make it simple.

Plantiff A claims product 1 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 2 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousand.

Plantiff A claims product 3 caused injury Y. Wins several hundred thousdan.

Etc etc etc. This happens, and quite a bit in Texas I might add.

Maybe if comapny A, B and C didn't all make deadly products they wouldn't be getting sued.

:roll:

Yeah and Dow Corning made a deadly(or harmful) product(breast implants). That didnt stop them from being put into bankruptcy from the billions in judgements they had against them.

You shouldnt be allowed to claim Y injury was caused by products 1 2 3. Or atleast civil defense attonerys SHOULD be allowed to enter that in to the trial.

You should be able to present other theories about how the person recieved injury Y, but weather or not he sued, is sueing, or settles is irrelavent.

Its stupid to allow people to claim they are injured by one product. Then allow them to sue another product over the same injury. Someone winning a suit over the same injury is perfectly relevant.

Both products could contrubut to the injury and both could qualifie for punitive damages. The result of other lawsuits are irrelevant because what those 12 people decided is not evidence that your product did not cause harm.

Punitive damages aside, it shows that you've already been compensated for your injury.

I am all for compensation of actual damages caused. I am even in favor of punitive damages when a company intentionally keeps a dangerous product on the market. I do oppose a plaintiff collecting punitive damages, or an attorney basing compensation off punitive damages collected.

If I had my way, a plaintiff could be made whole, attorneys fees paid and then punitive damages would be awarded to a noninterested third party. For example, if a faulty product caused a heart attack, punitive damages could be awarded to the American Heart Association.

This both allows companies to be punished for their misdeed and it also restricts frivolous suits because the attorney and plaintiff won't collect on punitive damages.

As for your idea about punitive damages. Who is going to bother sueing for punitive damages when they have to pay the cost of the laywers out of their own money.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
As for your idea about punitive damages. Who is going to bother sueing for punitive damages when they have to pay the cost of the laywers out of their own money.

I never said that. I believe the plaintiff should be compensated for actual damages and then the attorney should be paid on top of that.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Now for medmal, I personally believe in unlimited economic damages, $1M (inflation adjusted) as a max punitive penalty, and attorney fees capped at 25% (paid by defendant in ADDITION to economic damages). But I believe the same system should also impose caps on liability insurance.

I don't agree with the $1 million punitive penalty, that is small change for large corporations.

What is meant by liability insurance?

I prefaced this paragraph by saying "medmal" . . . medical malpractice. If a company is making defective medical devices or drugs . . . and they have evidence of the deficiencies . . . they should get a great big whack. In essence, ALL PROFITS derived from the endeavor should be forfeited as punitive damages. But take note, I do NOT believe ALL of those punitive damages should go to the plaintiff. I think the plaintiff should get 10% MAX and the legal team should get 10% MAX. The remainder should serve public health in some manner.

I view medical malpractice and medmal liability insurance differently. Until the government either regulates or takes over this industry, doctors, hospitals, and their patients will remain hostages to an industry that's squeezing doctors REGARDLESS of their liability history. True "economic" damages for medmal should always be protected. Punitive damages CLEARLY have not "detered" crappy MDs. In fact, it's merely exacerbated a system where ALL doctors pay for the mistakes of a few bad apples. "Collective" punishment isn't fair and should stop. Every big settlement just gives the liability insurance companies another excuse to jack up rates.

Now hospitals should be held to a different standard. An MD that makes a clinical error is culpable for their error but if they should not be held to the same standard as a hospital which often makes financial decisions that compromise patient care. IMO, you can stop such behavior by punishing them harshly.

Obviously, I'm biased but the bias is practical. All MDs should be held responsible for how they practice medicine but $10million+ punitive fines warp the system.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
WTF do people think everything is on the internet, or you can have access to stuff. All this is based on my knowledge of Texas law and court cases.

Ah -- Texas. The same idiots who gave us Bush. That explains it. (j/k)

Seriously, if you think Bushwhacko's ideas of tort reform are a good idea, try getting permanently injured by some defective product or by some unscrupulous quack who happens to be an M.D. and a medical license. THEN, come back and tell us how you much you want limits on what you can legitimately claim from those responsible for your loss after years of suffering. That seems to be the only way you're going to get an appreciation of what those claimants have to go through.