What is wrong with our legal system?
 

More evidence of the "lottery mentality" that trial lawyers propagate. (In other words: you stepped on my little toe, I deserve to be independently wealthy.)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002268301_yofi09m.html

"Court documents say he admitted that his dog killed a neighbor's cat in February 2004 "due in part to my negligence."

Gray said he just learned of the financial judgment yesterday from a reporter. "This is way out of hand. This is absolutely crazy," he said.

Gray said he had already served 21 days in jail and three months under house arrest for the animal-control violation."

The dog owner had admitted liability and had previously been convicted of previous violations. Humm, I guess the dog owner just couldn't get it through his head that with ownership comes responsibility. That sounds fair to me.

I would hardly call $45k judgment the road to independant wealth. I guess it's all relative.

Re: What is wrong with our legal system?
 

In this case, it appears to be more the Judge(a lawyer) penalizing Gray for NOT hiring another lawyer.

I mean really; people (innocent until PROVEN guilty) defending themselves!?

Why that's worse than the mauled kitty. Such audacious accused people MUST BE MADE TO PAY! . . .. :rolleyes:

Really, a judges decision like that says to the people, 'one way or another, we will make you a paying customer . . . "innocent until PROVEN guilty" --that's just a little lawyerly humor.'

The cat owner should have been awarded $100 for the cat (about what it costs to "adopt" one from the humane society), and charged for all court fees for wasting the court's time and my tax dollars.

The judge in this case should be disbarred and impeached. It's amazing to me how much common sense is out of place in some courtrooms. The judge should have thrown out the case as soon as the plaintiff's lawyer asked for $30,000 for a cat.

I wonder what the replacement cost would be, to the cat owner, if her cat ate a neigbors fish?

Even if it was a typical fish . .. say like. . .a red herring!

(read: this is not about the damn cat! )

Just a couple of observations, I have no comment on the outcome...don't know the details, so I don't even want to go there. ;)

1) This was not a criminal case (that was last year), so this is not a case of "innocent until proven guilty."

2) It sounds like this was a default judgment, which means the guy didn't show up in Court, not just a case of self representation. You don't show up to Court, then the Plaintiff gets everything they ask for.

Too many lawyers.
Not enough real work.
No offense, KurtV..
:)

Favorite Movie Quote:

There are now more students in law schools than lawyers walking the streets. We're comin' out!

Sounds like real work to me, counsel probably got one third!

Scooter, sounds like a conversion claim and a negligent infliction of emotional distress with some actual damages thrown in, what do you think?

Hmm.. . conversion . .. . permanent deprivation of value of the cat. Court hears evidence to ascertain value of cat, she introduces evidence at trial of travel expenses, customs fees, food, etc. Defendant (acting in pro se) doesn't refute any of it, she's home free?

On the NIMD, he doesn't refute the negligence claim, she introduces evidence of psych/physical harm (note small medical bill) and asks for $15k, he doesn't refute, she wins!

Oh, and this does not represent a weakness of the legal system. All moral responsibility in this case, as in every other one, lies with the litigants.

legion; 'Interstate 60' (DVD) is a must-see comedy, that has a town saturated with lawyers.

Legion, Isn't that St. Elmo's Fire?

The Devil's Advocate.

This was not the dog owner's first violation? Well, I'd point at this little factoid before I'd assume the judge was punishing someone for not hiring an attorney. If I were a judge and it were in my perview, I'd hammer certain kinds of irresponsible pet owners, and this guy sounds like he might be an appropriate target.

Interesting concept...the dog converted my cat for his own use and refused to give it back?;)

At least there was no claim for loss of consortium!:eek:

$15,000 worth of emotional distress, huh? Sounds like this guy still has some room in that account. What if he shows up to get his other $14,995's worth?

I agree with you. Maybe this guy had a hard time keeping the dog in the yard. Some dogs are escape artists. Me neighbors dogs are always getting out. My Choc. Lab has gotten out a couple of times when the gate did not latch properly.

Granted my neighbors dogs and my Lab are not capable of hurting anything. My Lab will chase a cat / bird / squirrel if given the chance. Would it kill? Don't know, don't think so.

45K for a cat? Dogs kill cats like this guy said cats kill birds, shall we start citing cat owners every time a cat kills a bird?

Ha!! I am getting sued 10K because some guy bought a house and its fence is 25 feet outside the property. I am a land surveyor I depicted the fence on the survey. (Which he claims he never saw, honestly ther bank hired me to survey his land not him, I delivered it to the bank) I am at a loss why the fence company is not being sued. They installed it. I had to hire an attorney to retort their attempted letter of extortion.

"a retired, 71-year-old former junior-high-school teacher...."It sounds crazy that I value my animals more than I do people"

I served two 9 month terms in a joint with guards like that. She speaks the truth... :(