All tort reform will do is protect a company like GE when it decides to dump in the Hudson again.

So where, exactly does the money come from that has made Milberg Weiss so rich?

Per usual, when their pre-conceived notions are shown to be false (i.e. "tort reform" would keep a criminal from filing a lawsuitsuit for battery), the one-dimensional thinkers just slither silently away. Not the slightest hint that they have learned anything, because they haven't.

They know everything, and have for many many years.

Even when it's dead wrong.

When I was younger, I worked for Autozone.

It's the only job I ever had where my life was threatened over a radiator hose.

In my experience there, it seems also to be Autozone policy to just pay off anyone with a grievance rather than fight them in court. The robber will probably get a settlement from them.

Were you referring to me?

I was referring to the entire first page of this thread. Everyone piled on to the false premise (yes, the one you started), and then when its falsity was demonstrated, they just went silently away. That kind of thing seems to happen a lot with the neocon contingent here.

Rick went so far as to claim that I was “defending a worthless suit” when nothing could be further from the truth. I was pointing out what should be obvious.

This stupid lawsuit is not an "example of why we need tort reform."

Ok, then I'll state, for the record, that I don't understand tort reform.

"Tort reform" takes many shapes and sizes. It usually is concerned with limiting the ability of juries to award damages, by capping awards at pre-fixed levels, or eliminating monetary damages altogether for certain kinds of awards. With medical malpractice, it also usually requires some sort of pre-screening from a medical professional or medical board that has to be filed with the suit.

Tort reform would not stop someone from filing a frivolous lawsuit, whether that suit is based on tort, contract, or any other legal theory.

Frivolous lawsuit suits:

1. Are in the eye of the beholder (by way of example, this one probably is, but none of us know for sure. After they disarmed the guy, the store clerks allegedly chased him into the parking lot and beat him. That's fine with me. But what if they then broke his arms and legs with a tire iron? What is they poked his eyes out with a stick? What if they set him on fire? The point is, it's a question of degree, and we are all assuming that they didn't torture the guy, just roughed him up a bit)

2. Are already punishable by existing rules having nothing to do with tort reform.

Intelligent post, even though I disagree with your conclusions. But at least they are debatable. I'll take one example:

So 15 year old Sally was stealing a pack of gum from the corner store, they caught her, brought her to the basement and raped her. No claim under your new rule.

That is of course wrong.

At its essence, tort reform takes governmental control away from judges and juries. It presumes that guys like you (no offense intended) can make the rules from your living room, and limit judges and juries powers when they actually hear the actual case.

That's wrong. If this is a bull**** suit, it will get thrown out quickly. If its really bad, the lawyer will be sanctioned. If its not so bad that the judge does not throw it out, then its up to a jury to decide.

You don't trust the judge or jury. I do. That's the fundamental difference between the pro and con on "tort reform."

Sally was just asking for it....

I realized I misread Mr. Cramer's post. He does not want the "it's ok to rape Sally if you catch her stealing gum" rule, he wants a "loser pays" rule.

That's called the "English system," and it's one I go back and forth on. It allows corporations with massive dollars to just bury the little guys. What if you had a 85% chance of winning, but it would cost you $5 million if you lost? Would you take the chance to bankrupt your family even though you know in your heart you are right?

On the other hand, it would dissuade a lot of crazy suits (but not this one, since the guy is in jail and could care less if they order him to pay).

On the other hand, the guy that litigated the first Pinto explosion probably would not have done so under the English system. There would be a lot of dangerous products and drugs out there if not for the tort system as we know it.

So I don't know....

Yep, sorry

When people ask me who my attorney is, I tell them John Cramer.

He's not really my attorney, but he's the most rational, clear thinking lawyer I know.

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...s/beerchug.gif Cheers, John!

Here's a thought. How about the lawyers grow a few ethical standards? I realize that 80% of the lawyers out there are trying to do a good job and adhere to the standards of their profession. The problem is that the other 20% of them are giving all of them a bad name. The endless ads for getting the most money for you after a car wreck, the billboards about suing the drug company, suits over hot coffee from McDonalds or getting your arse kicked while committing armed robbery.

If the lawyers are sick of the rest of us despising them, how about they clean up their own house?

When people ask me who my attorney is, I tell them Widebody 'cause he's funny and I would rather have a funny non-attorney for my attorney than an uptight, reactionary real attorney for my attorney.

Rodeo..

The truth of the matter is that the majority of citizenry do not trust attorneys. Late night TV shows ad after ad by "ambulance chasers: "Have you been wronged? Think you have been wronged? Like to sue someone? Call 1-800-the-vulture."

Right or wrong, the image that most attorneys have is one of smug superiority (they are smarter than everyone else). I worked, OTOH with attorneys that were employed by public entities (cities, counties, etc) and found them to have an altogether different mindset and most of these were actually interested in helping people (imagine that!!)

The fact that attorneys are "self governing" is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse. One would have to have a very unusual fox to do such a job honestly and sincerely. Attorneys write the laws, control the courts, and decide the legality of actions (that last should be in quotes).

Right or wrong, people only want to deal with an attorney when they have a serious problem. Whether the image is warranted or not, I will leave to others to decide.

Here's another thought ... why don't you grow some ethical standards?

You constantly misrepresent what others have said to suit whatever point you wish to make. Your debating standards, were you in a court of law, would earn you nothing but distrust, ridicule, and possibly sanction. You have proven yourself one of the most unethical posters here from a debating standpoint.

Don't believe me? Here's a blatant lie, right here in this thread.

I guess you feel it's ok to lie if you are on God's side.

And you're always on God's side, right Rick?

Bob, I agree. I cringe every time I see one of those commercials.

The Supreme Court has ruled it's a free speech issue, so there is little the profession can do about it unfortunately.

And by the way, doctors are self regulating also, as are many professions, from realtors to stockbrokers. The real regulation comes in the form of the tort lawsuits that all the so-called conservatives want to limit.

I do not know how to regulate self regulating organizations. Perhaps there should be a "Council" made up of members of all professional organizations as at least an advisory board. Lawyers stick together. Doctors stick together. This makes them potentially self-serving organizations, not unlike a union.

It is not merely tort reform that must be addressed; it is a culture that has to change, and the free speech rights of the less than noble attorneys has been instrumental in the current image "problem". How to change it I haven't a clue.