Litigation Nation

1pump · 12-08-2003, 10:21 PM

Interesting article about our increasingly litigious society. Kind of long at 3 pages, but worth it, IMHO.

Litigation Nation

drhall99 · 12-08-2003, 11:49 PM

I read a fiction story that included a chapter on a utopian society that had a holiday that everyone celebrated but nobody talked about - it was called The Day All The Lawyers Were Killed.

D.

kamloops · 12-09-2003, 05:37 AM

Guess what political action group is the single largest contributor to the D.N.C..
1) Trial Lawyers
2) N.E.A.

Please help George Bush push through
Tort reform.
I am 46 years old and most of the people whom I know that went through Medical school and received their license to practice medicine have quit the profession, could no longer afford the malpractice insurance.

Silver Hilton · 12-09-2003, 06:28 AM

Blaming the lawyers for this situation is as dumb as blaming a dog for biting. Dogs bite, but owners of the dog are responsible for whether the dog is sicced on someone.

12-09-2003, 06:34 AM

Many lawyers troll for cases and they don't have to accept clients.

TheRogue · 12-09-2003, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
Blaming the lawyers for this situation is as dumb as blaming a dog for biting. Dogs bite, but owners of the dog are responsible for whether the dog is sicced on someone.

Yeah, but if we got rid of all the dogs...

TR

Straydog · 12-09-2003, 06:54 AM

TR,

"What you talking about", gettin' rid of all the dogs!???!! :grin:

As for some lawyers trolling for cases, that is right on.......

The first time I became aware of Dennis Richardson, now one of our "conservative" Republican State Representatives down here, was when I saw his ad on the back of a Medford phone book. It had a picture of him and said, "so, you've had a auto accident, now how do you collect?" Or something of that nature. He is an ambulance chaser, plain and simple. How hard do you think he will fight for tort reform??????

We can't very well get rid of them if we keep electing them to office.

[ 12-09-2003, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Silver Hilton · 12-09-2003, 07:02 AM

Folks, lawyers don't decide awards. Judges and juries do. Judges are either elected or are appointed by those we elect. Juries are made up of those who weren't lucky enough to get out of jury duty. The [aintiffs lawyers are a noisy, obnoxious part of the problem, but they don't exist in isolation.

I'd like to see two reforms. I'd like to see the losing party be made to pay fees for the prevailing party in frivolous cases. I'd also like to see attornies be liable for economic damages to the defendent in frivolous cases. As it is now, there is no disincentive for attornies to act as a weapon for a plaintiff. Let's make them have the same risk as a manufacturer of a car.

Hoosier Daddy · 12-09-2003, 07:04 AM

SD, right on.... [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

12-09-2003, 07:09 AM

SH,
I would like to see some accountability. It would end much of this problem.

kamloops · 12-09-2003, 07:14 AM

This guy and his firm are the "Mother of All Ambulance Chasers", he is or was the President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and also one of the top contributor to the D.N.C.
Also a Trustee of the Democratic National Committee.

Read This;
http://www.baronandbudd.com/attorney...cfm?attorney=7

[ 12-09-2003, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: kamloops ]

kamloops · 12-09-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kamloops:
This guy and his firm are the "Mother of All Ambulance Chasers", he is or was the President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and also one of the top contributor to the D.N.C.
Also a Trustee of the Democratic National Committee.

Read This, it's the company website.
http://www.baronandbudd.com/attorney...cfm?attorney=7

Silver Hilton · 12-09-2003, 07:45 AM

But isn't that desire for accountability, that desire for a perfect solution, that desire to find somebody to blame, isn't that what is really at fault here?

The lawyers and the awards are but a symptom. The real issue is our mythic belief that if something wrong has happened, someone is to blame, and it is our god given right to get money from that person or company. And, if the person who is at fault doesn't have any money, then someone else close by who does is really to blame, and should be made to pay. We have come to believe that it is natural to be made whole or more than whole when ill befalls us.

The problem is, rain falls, accidents happen, and coffee spills. Merely existing in life puts us at risk. Even in traffic accidents, where one party may be at 'fault' we ignore our own assumption of risk. After all, no-one can hit you if you don't get out onto the road.

We have lost sight of the reality that the world is often a harsh place. The American people have been educated by TV to believe that there is always someone at fault, and that justice is always served by making that person pay.

We have also lost much of our sense as to where the line of personal responsibility lies. If I put a cup of coffee between my legs, and it sloshes and I get burned, why is this McDonald's fault? If I smoke cigarettes, why is it Phillip Morris's fault if I get lung disease?

I think the root cause of the issue is that Americans have lost a basic sense that the world is regrettably a dangerous place, and that we incur risk simply through being alive. Telling the difference between that risk, and some increase in that risk that was caused due to someone else's act or negligence is simply becoming hard for the average man on the jury to differentiate.

1pump · 12-09-2003, 09:25 AM

Quote:

I'd like to see two reforms. I'd like to see the losing party be made to pay fees for the prevailing party in frivolous cases. I'd also like to see attornies be liable for economic damages to the defendent in frivolous cases. As it is now, there is no disincentive for attornies to act as a weapon for a plaintiff.

At this point, that's the only thing that makes sense. It's getting out of control, and something has to be done. Especially in health care. Physicians are dropping like flies, and the only thing that will save risky specialties like obstetrics and neurosurgery is caps on jury awards (except in extreme cases).

Quote:

Guess what political action group is the single largest contributor to the D.N.C..
1) Trial Lawyers
2) N.E.A.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. Congressmen/women are predominantly attorneys and they're not going to enact any legislation that will undermine their private-sector paycheck.

[ 12-09-2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

Silver Hilton · 12-09-2003, 09:55 AM

One thing that could be considered would be professional juries or panels of judges. In medical cases, technology cases, and other complex areas, the man off the street isn't smart, enough experienced enough, or educated enough to decide negligence in many areas. It makes no sense for a group of people with no programming or systems background, for example, to decide the question of whether Internet Explorer is part of the Windows operating system. A minimal qualification for sitting on this jury would be a background in operating systems theory, yet such a background would most likely result in getting you thrown OFF the jury.

Likewise in medical cases. Doctors and nurses would never be allowed on the jury.

Silver Hilton · 12-09-2003, 10:05 AM

Keta raised a point in e-mail that I think is germane...

My wife had cancer five years ago. She was sick for several months before they deduced what the cause was. Her doctor, a kind, skilled, careful woman, was mortified that she had not detcted the cancer. Sally could easily have died, but did not, for which we are all very grateful.

Now, lets say that she had died. The doctor missed the cancer, but there isn't a simple test to perform to detect the cancer. The tests that were performed came back ambiguous or negative. Keta had a similar test.

The doctors use the tests that they have. But the patient is sick before they go to the doctor. If the doctor's tests turn out to be inadequate, if the procedure only works 80% of the time and you are the 20%, if you happen to be the patient sandwiched between the two patients that died on the table, and the doctor is in the middle of a 24 hour shift and happens to make a slip-up - to what extent is that something that the doctor and hospital should pay for, and to what extent is that simply life?

I think our society is trying to defy randomness. That just won't work. The dice eventually come up 7's.

[ 12-09-2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

1pump · 12-09-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Likewise in medical cases. Doctors and nurses would never be allowed on the jury.

IMHO, professionals have a propensity to protect their own.
I agree that the average Joe can't make an informed decision about complex issues, but a jury box full of experts would be prejudicial. So the alternative is a jury populated by housewives and people who couldn't dodge jury duty, and will probably be bored to tears after a few days of anti-trust testimony.

Quote:

I think our society is trying to defy randomness. That just just work. The dice eventually come up 7's.

When my mom died in September, my dad was furious with the doctor who initially refused to admit her to the hospital. (Thanks, Medicare)
He apparently didn't think that an 83-year-old woman with pneumonia was anything serious. She eventually was admitted 3 days later, but by then the pneumonia had turned into acute respiratory distress and she died six days later.
We haven't considered legal action, and don't intend to. It's just a big case of "what if?"

[ 12-09-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

kamloops · 12-09-2003, 10:49 AM

Trageties can happen and do, people and MD'S are human.
Back in the early 60's I know of a 6y.o. child passing away due to complications of a simple
tonsillectomy, the parents did not sue they were too heartbroken.
Just say no to Lawyers......

Radke · 12-09-2003, 12:10 PM

I had Thanksgiving dinner with a friend who sells insurance. He said the most frequent claim on homeowners insurance right now is for dog bites. He has two going right now, each for over half a million dollars. In one case, the dog never broke the skin, but the guy getting bit says he is having nightmares about being attacked by wolves. Who knows what he may end up getting, but all of us will end up paying. I really like the thought of the person bringing the suite being held financially responsible for a frivilous suite they lose, and bring their lawyer along for good measure.

Royal · 12-09-2003, 12:48 PM

I noticed that you had donations to the Democratic party. But the republicans are getting donations from the AMA. Both groups are looking out for both their interests.

Granted I do believe that there should be some sort of tort reform... but at the same time I do believe that if a doctor mess's up, you should be able to sue him for more than the Bush admin is pushing for.

kamloops · 12-09-2003, 02:44 PM

We, the American consumer are all paying for these frivolous awards. Granted, some more than others.
I know my medical insurance went up more than 100% this year alone.
The way were going their will be no more AMA,
MD'S as we know will be only a memory.
Who's the winner then? Dems-No, Rep's- No,
Lawyers?