More frivolous lawsuits

[techweenie]

Oh, you just know some scumbag lawyer is going to get ahold of this and sue a bunch of people.

http://www.wftv.com/news/6253589/detail.html












(for everyone who buys into the massive corporate propaganda campaign against lawyers and big jury awards, I'm being sarcastic)

[Burnin' oil]

Arms and legs are over-rated anyway

[Nathans_Dad]

I'm not sure what the point of the thread is, you post something that at the face sounds so outlandishly egregious and then expect someone to say the family has no right to sue??

Heh, I might as well post something about a person buying some coffee and then suing because it was hot....oh wait a sec...

[fastpat]

No pun intended, but there are some pieces of this story, er, missing.

[Dantilla]

Pointing out one instance where a lawsuit is neccessary does not change the fact that there are way too many frivolous lawsuits in this country.

That's as silly as "I have a flat tire, therefore all tires are flat".

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I'm not sure what the point of the thread is, you post something that at the face sounds so outlandishly egregious and then expect someone to say the family has no right to sue??

Heh, I might as well post something about a person buying some coffee and then suing because it was hot....oh wait a sec...

Yeah, I knew it, the urban legend gets hauled out again. The 'hot coffee lawsuit' was finally ajudicated at approximately $480K, even though the judge in the case stated that McDonald's was "reckless, callous and willful." But heck, he actually heard the facts of case, which doesn't compare with the much more valuable opinions of people who only heard the news reports.

[artplumber]

Someone please read the article.

The gist of the story is that the woman is suing the hosp to obtain information which may be privileged (because it entails the records of other patient(s)). The hospitals lawyers are, if anything, demanding a suit from the woman before releasing the information.

Of course, this is all due to lawyers anyway. Ones that wrote the laws like HIPAA, and others (hospital attys) who are trying to avoid being sued by the third party who's information will have to be given to this unfortunate lady.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by techweenie
... The 'hot coffee lawsuit' was finally ajudicated at approximately $480K, ...

If you don't think something is wrong with an award of anything more than $0 for spilling hot coffee on yourself...(although it obviously would have been wise to pay the lady's med bills)

Newsflash - life is dangerous.

[MRM]

Originally posted by Dantilla
Pointing out one instance where a lawsuit is neccessary does not change the fact that there are way too many frivolous lawsuits in this country.

That's as silly as "I have a flat tire, therefore all tires are flat".

Actually it's not. Cases like this demonstrate that sometimes lawsuits are necessary. Our system provides a forum for such cases to be heard. If you can design a system that allows only meritourious suits to be heard; that prohibits people from bringing frivolous suits without inadvertently barring meritorious claims, please describe it. I do this for a living and I haven't figured out a way to screen out the frivolous cases without barring at least some good cases too.

I am a defense attorney. Other than a few years spent prosecuting criminals, I have spent my career defending people who have been sued. Sometimes I thought the case against me was frivolous, sometimes I was embarassed by my client. I have absolutely no affection for the plaintiffs bar and no incentive to take their side on anything. But even as a defense lawyer I cannot see how we can adopt a system that screens out the frivolous without catching some of the stuff that should be in court.

Flame away.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by techweenie
Yeah, I knew it, the urban legend gets hauled out again. The 'hot coffee lawsuit' was finally ajudicated at approximately $480K, even though the judge in the case stated that McDonald's was "reckless, callous and willful." But heck, he actually heard the facts of case, which doesn't compare with the much more valuable opinions of people who only heard the news reports.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that.

$480k for spilling hot coffee on yourself? THAT IS JUSTICE I TELL YOU!!!

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by MRM
If you can design a system that allows only meritourious suits to be heard; that prohibits people from bringing frivolous suits without inadvertently barring meritorious claims, please describe it.

Ok, how about this:

Remove the lawyer from the equation.

If a patient is injured they present their case to a panel of judges who are trained in medical malpractice cases. The judges hear from the physician and then decide whether the case has merit or not. If it does, the judges award compensation based on nationally agreed upon guidelines.

Oh yeah, and loser pays for all court costs. That should help eliminate some of the frivolous suits.

[Hugh R]

MRM

I sold a house to a lawyer 11 years ago and did full disclosure, like sliding door doesn't lock use stick. The home inspection said "Sliding door doesn't lock" the final walk through same thing. First thing on the lawsuit was "Sliding door doesn't lock" I had 20+ items that I disclosed, paid for in escrow or we ageed in writing to disagree, he sued me for everyone. Went for a summary judgement, and the Judge said those were matters of fact for the jury to decide, not matters of law, like did the POS miss a statute of limitations. $30K later in lawyers bills and expert witnesses I settled. I think a Grand Jury type of pre-trial thing is appropriate. I'm sure I could have convinced a simple majority that I had dealt fair and honestly and not allow it to proceed to trial. I have zero respect for the civil justice system in this country. That said, I think this poor women has a big case. Going to the hospital and delivering a baby there should be zero expectation of coming out a quadruple amputee.

[Dottore]

Originally posted by MRM
I do this for a living and I haven't figured out a way to screen out the frivolous cases without barring at least some good cases too.

Some jurisdictions do this very effectively by giving the judges full discretion to award full (ie. actual) court and defendants costs in the case of frivolous suits.

[Dantilla]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Oh yeah, and loser pays for all court costs. That should help eliminate some of the frivolous suits.

+1. While not a perfect system (is there such a thing?), this would be far better than what we have now.

[Nathans_Dad]

All I will say about the case in particular is that you would need ALOT more information to make any sort of judgement.

It sounds so far out there on the surface that there has to be a whole mountain more to the story.

Contrary to popular belief (at least by Tech), doctors are not in the habit of running around randomly chopping off limbs...

[Moses]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Going to the hospital and delivering a baby there should be zero expectation of coming out a quadruple amputee.

I disagree. You could end up dead. Before the age of modern medicine, about 5% of women died in childbirth. The most common factors were infection and hemorrhage. Still happens today, though less commonly. This lady had necrotizing fasciitis and toxic shock syndrome. She's lucky to be alive. Sometimes life sucks.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Hugh R
MRM

I sold a house to a lawyer 11 years ago and did full disclosure, like sliding door doesn't lock use stick. The home inspection said "Sliding door doesn't lock" the final walk through same thing. First thing on the lawsuit was "Sliding door doesn't lock" I had 20+ items that I disclosed, paid for in escrow or we ageed in writing to disagree, he sued me for everyone. Went for a summary judgement, and the Judge said those were matters of fact for the jury to decide, not matters of law, like did the POS miss a statute of limitations. $30K later in lawyers bills and expert witnesses I settled. I think a Grand Jury type of pre-trial thing is appropriate. I'm sure I could have convinced a simple majority that I had dealt fair and honestly and not allow it to proceed to trial. I have zero respect for the civil justice system in this country. That said, I think this poor women has a big case. Going to the hospital and delivering a baby there should be zero expectation of coming out a quadruple amputee.

You didn't counter sue for breach of contract? He'd have had to settle.

[hytem]

I don't know how auto insurance companies make any money.

The problem is there is no downside in frivolous lawsuits to the suing party. No risk, as long as a lawyer sees an opportunity to make a profit. The dishonesty out there amazes.

[Superman]

I have adopted some very useful tactics in my professional, and even in my personal life. I listen. Talking is fun, but listening is more informative. I ask questions. That's how I get answers. If I can still think of questions to ask, then I'm not ready to draw conclusions.

Some of you apparently have not learned these tricks.

[MRM]

Those aren't bad ideas, but they don't solve the problem with frivolous lawsuits. A bad guy like Hugh's house purchasing lawyer is going to sue whether he faces fees and costs or not. If you win and tax costs against him you get to pay your costs and then try to collect against him. Someone who sues frivolously isn't going to be detered by sanctions after the case is judged frivolous.

Auto insurance companies make money three ways. First, they don't rely on underwriting profits exclusively; they have other investments funded by the money they receive in premiums but have not yet paid to anyone.

Second, they increase rates. Between 10 and 30% of your auto rates are accountable to fraud. That's outright fraud - accidents that didn't happen, treatment that was billed but not received, things like that.

Third, they defend cases much more vigorously than the public thinks. The number one expense for insurers is property damage from fender benders and hail damage. Personal injury is a distant second. But there are a lot more property damage claims than there are personal injury claims, so the cost per claim is less although the total cost is more.

Every jurisdiction has rules that allow for costs and fees to be awarded if someone brings a frivolous claim, or defense for that matter. The problem is that your common sense definition of frivolous and the court's standard are two different things. Just try to write a definition of frivolous lawsuit that allows good cases to proceed but screens out the bad ones. It's harder than it seems.