A Sue Happy people

[anger management]

Is just me but it seems that people now days are getting sue happy. And are sueing for some of the stupidest things. Like for example a while back in the news a couple of people tried sueing mcdonalds for suposedly thier food was addictive and it was making them obese. :shocked: Come on no one made them go buy the food they did it on thier own free will.

[ 12-21-2003, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: anger management ]

[Pyramid]

Yeah, I know what you mean. A freind and I were talking that this could be an actual statement by a lawyer in a courtroom these days.

Attorney: You see judge and jury, there was no label on my clients hammer, stating that he should'nt hit himself in the head with it.
We think the negligence of the ACME hammer company, not putting a label on the hammer stating "Do Not Hit Self In Head" has caused my client to use the hammer inappropriately. We seek 10 million dollars in damages

[ 12-21-2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Chinookster ]

[JCJ]

I can not remember if it was Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin but one of them said "First we kill all the Lawyers". Wise words of advice from our forfathers!!!

[Norski]

Two days ago, we were shoping for Christmas, when we came out to our car, too young men were standing by there auto talking, when we went to put the stuff in our auto, the owner of this 1965 chev inpaula, came over to my wife and said HAY CAN'T YOU WATCH WHEN YOU OPEN YOUR DOOR, YOU HAVE SCRACHED MY DOOR, AND PUT A DENT INTO MY DOOR!!
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS.
I said to the young me that your car was not even parked next to us when we arived, so go find some other dummy out there to HASSELL.
We left the parking lot and to home we went, it was,nt 1 hour, and Yes Mr.Policeman stoped by, 50 guestions ect, he looked at our car door, and said these boy's want to take some one to court, for the damage that someone has done to there car, The Policeman said I know it was not you that did the damage on there car, there as he felt was looken for a fast buck.
I said to Mr.Policeman TELL THEM BOY TO SUE ME, I would love to go to court and tell my story.

[kayakfisher]

Tort reform boys is where it's at...if you call and write your legislators this can be controlled, but the money from the trial attorneys has a very firm grip on our elected officials. Tort reform was killed in committee last year in Washington State.

The trial lawyers in the state of washington have apparrently given an average of $1600.00 to their Political Action Group to prevent tort reform.

Physicians' malpractice insurance rates are expected to double next year...largely due to a suit happy mentality. And guess who is giving out huge awards for bad medical outcomes...our peers on the juries. The use of language by a skilled attorney can make a very illogical argument sound very logical sometimes...and if the "victim" is suffering someone has to be blames for that i guess...someone other than mother nature, nor chance, or the victims themselves?

And who gets most of the money from a lawsuit...is it the person filing the suit, or the attorney.

Winning a big lawsuit for a "victim" should not be a winning lottery ticket for the attorney.

M.

[Silver Hilton]

JC, that would be Shakespeare. It is worth noting that his phrase was sarcasm. A piece I found...

Falling into camp "I resemble that remark," here's a bit of history on one
of the worlds' most common epithets against the legal profession. While
this remark has been reduced to a slogan or jingle, placed in context, the
line makes a profound statement on the conflict between rule of law and
anarchy (or, perhaps more relevant today, the conflict between rule of law
and a police state). As eloquently employed by Justice Stevens
below, "Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a
step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government."


Henry VI is the son of much beloved Henry V, and his legacy includes the
bloody Wars of the Roses, embroiling England in generations of civil war.
Described as "a high-class soap opera," throughout its three parts, Henry
VI sees the beleaguered king faced by threats from within his court,
from the nobility, from the French and from uprisings among the common
people.


One of these uprisings was led by Jack Cade. Cade and his men wished to
present grievances to the king. The king received their petitions and then
gathered an army to destroy them. Cade's men then routed the troops sent
to subdue them and ended up capturing London. Although Cade was initially
welcomed into London, his men soon engaged in selective looting and
pillaging, and executed Lord Say for encouraging literacy.

This provides the backdrop for the statement by Dick the Butcher, "The
first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," to which Jack Cade
replies, "Nay, that I meant to do." Shakespeare adapted this statement
from Holingshed's Chronicles, where it is reported that John Ball exhorted
the people "that they might destroy first the great lords of the realm,
and after the judges and lawyers, questmongers, and all other whom they
took to be against the commons."


Shakespeare's Stratford-on-Avon was not spared from the revolutionary
fervor and some local nobility were killed. Taken in context, Cade's men
sought not a utopia without lawyers (compare to Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia)
but rather to eliminate government and the rule of law. Thus Dick the
Butcher was a precursor to Sex Pistols.

[Artwo]

This is exacly why I carry a $1,000,000 umbrella insurance policy on my property. With all of the kids that play at our house, some times accidents happen and you never know how their parents will react. And also to protect against the person slipping in your driveway or sidewalk (yes, in most cases the sidewalk belongs to you), etc. and suing you. The policy price is minimal compared to some sue happy low life taking everything you've worked hard for.

[Private-Aye-Fish]

worth every penny.

Originally posted by Artwo:
This is exacly why I carry a $1,000,000 umbrella insurance policy on my property.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[frankenfish]

However, Aristotle said: The ruin of society will be the fault of the lawyers!

As a physician who has never been sued, my malpractice doubles each year. If this continues, I will be able to survive 2 more years here, but if there is no tort reform, I will have to leave Oregon.

Lawsuits have become a lottery. So few have anything to do with incompetence on the part of the doctor. Almost always, the outcome was unavoidable, and simply not acceptable to the family. Death has become an option, and we feel we are free not to choose it.

If it does not change soon, there will be no medical care available.

The misconception of the "rich" doctor serves to promote a feeling of entitlement. Yes, we earn more than most, but not as much as many. We are also on call 24/7, work 100 hours weekly, train for 12 years for next to nothing leaving us with 200-400 thousand dollars of debt. That dedication is going to be a thing of the past if we keep getting literally **** on.

Frank

Originally posted by JCJ:
I can not remember if it was Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin but one of them said "First we kill all the Lawyers". Wise words of advice from our forfathers!!!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It was actually William Shakespeare from his play Henry VI who said that.

[ 12-22-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Radke]

There was a story on news this morning where a Tri-met bus got into a small fende-bender. Two guys were hauled off in ambulances. They reviewed the on-board cameras, saw where both got on after the crash. Both had sued Tri-met on earler occasions. Both have been charged with fraud.

[kamloops]

At the rate Law Schools are puking out new lawyers it's just a matter of time before every
one gets the privledge of being sued.
Why don't we take a page from the government and treat lawyers and law schools the way commercial fisherman were treated when the fish were being depleted. Buy out the licenses of lawyers to practice law and convert law schools to house homeless people.
Don't think anyone would miss them.
Who is the largest P.A.C.? Yes, that's it Trial Lawyers.

[ 12-23-2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: kamloops ]

[Pyramid]

Two guys were hauled off in ambulances. They reviewed the on-board cameras, saw where both got on after the crash. Both had sued Tri-met on earler occasions. Both have been charged with fraud. [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I saw a special a couple of years ago about just that. The took empty buses staged an accident in LA, if memory serves correct, and video'd the scum of the earth hopping on right after the accident. These people should be turning big rocks into little ones for twenty to life. IMO

[Big TULE]

It is our society... Not the lawyers. I in no way advocate or support lawyers but it is peoples inability to take responsibility for there own actions. For example: Old lady that spills hot coffee in mcdonalds drive through on herself... Or the thief that falls through the skylight onto kitchen table and can no longer walk... Or guy who breaks into house and is shot by the owner but does not die, and sues and wins... Yeah Crap if you ask me. Not the lawyers fault it is the person who hired the lawyer looking for the lottery winnings...

[kayakfisher]

Lawyers need to develop some real ethics...meaning that just because the law allows something to happen doesn't mean an attorney should use the law to make an easy buck. Common sense and law seemed to have diverged, in part because the rationality of law is distored by the inexact meaning of words used to define law. Therefore the written laws' intent can be easily distorted by a sharp lawyer to get a decision that had nothing to do with the original intent of a certain law, and then the case law becomes the dominant determinant of the next filed case.

How did the system get this way? Ethics has nothing to do with big business or law perhaps...as recent current events concerning the energy, accounting, and investment businesses have shown. None of those events could have happened in fact if the lawyers involved had explained the ethics of law, and not just how to get around the letter of the law...and its original intent.

M

[waterflogger]

First post to ifish long time reader, as you can see by name (waterflogger) my sucsess at fishing. Can i sue the tackle companys for my lack of sucsess? I enjoy anything to do with the outdoors, so i will keep trying untill I find a lawyer to take my case.

[DF]

ya dangit, this lure package says catches one every time! but I didn't get one! whats up with that! [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[The Big Tuna]

I notice that everyone is so sure that the victims are money hungry scumbags looking for an easy buck. Actually, there are two sides to every story. As a lawyer who practices in the areas of personal injury and medical malpractice, I can assure you of a few things:

First: I will not knowingly take any lawsuit that does not have merit. Why? Because its terrible business and when I lose that lawsuit, my firm gets stuck with the costs because usually the injured person does not have any money. Believe me, lawyers are not "bilking" the insurance companies.

Second: You should talk to some of the victims of medical malpractice and ask them what they think about their permanent injuries and the "windfall" settlement they received from the insurance company. Talk to someone who lost the use of their legs due to a botched surgery or the widow of a deceased person who lost their life because of a missed diagnosis. Ask them if they think it was worth it.

All I'm saying is that some of the victims out there deserve the compensation they receive. CLearly, physicians that are negligent are not bad people but when their negligence causes injuries and financial loss to a victim, who should bear the brunt of the costs, the victim or the physician's insurance company?

[kayakfisher]

There is a difference between being negligent and not being perfect...making a normal human error is not the same as being negligent, and the medical system, already under assault by the insurance companies by the way, cannot withstand the expectectations of the legal system if it is to remain intact. There are currently many problems with our medical system, but these problems are not going to be made lesser by the tort system that is now in place.

By the way...the trial lawyers' association supposedly contributed $1600.00 per member to their pac this last year? Is this correct? I suppose they did this out of concern for the people who were injured by the medical system? If so, what else has the trial lawyers association done to make the system safer for people? And how often do these people take a case for free? I assure you a great deal of the medical community does a great deal of work for free..when the trial lawyers start doing some of their work for free when people have no funds, or work for a simple hourly rate other than for a contingency fee the concern they express for injured patients will have a bit more credibility.


The expectation of doctors being perfect is not realistic, nor is it right to expect that all the deep pockets that dealt with an ill person should be asked to make the big legal contribution to the big suit just because the person who was most at fault does not have a deep pocket. Sometimes bad outcomes happen, and the laws of nature, the laws of chance have bad outcomes...this does not mean that it is right or just for someone else to pay a large some of money to an ill person who did not recover.

If the goal is to get better medical care mega-lawsuits are not the way to achieve that goal. Perhpaps it makes more sense to make sure that people who are not doing their job are not allowed to practice medicine, nor to work in the ancillary medical services. You would find however, that even normally bright, well trained, hardworking and well intentioned people are not perfect, and in time few practioners would be able to practice if the standard of practice is perfection at all times.

Why does it not make sense for patients to simply buy bad outcome insurance for themselves...so if complications occur they can get their settlement, but keep the money themselves? In time such an arrangement would likely result in rapid settlements, with fairly standardized payements to people that are harmed, and the funds would go where they would do the most good.

Few people would buy such a thing anyway, but it would seem as if that would simplify the process, make compensation available to people, and not punish the docs and hospitals who are doing a very good job by raising their premiums.

There is also a difference between taking a suit that has merit, and taking a suit that is winable. Not all suits that are won have merit, and not all suits turned down had no merit. There is an apparent practice among some attorneys to take a suit that has little real merit but the end result was so bad that a jury could sympathize with the complaintant anyway, and the costs of defending such a bad outcome, even in the case where no malpractice really occurred, is so much that a relatively small (relatively is the key word here) settlement is made to get rid of the problem. Any suit is a loss for the medical system, even if well defended and if won...but the last time I checked docs in the state of Oregon have little recourse if the suit had no merit...ie I don't think the doc could countersue either the attorney or the plaintiff even if the suit had no merit at all.

By the way...a friend of mine who is a physician, and several other physicians, were named in a suit in which the patient, an iv drug abuser, sued everyone including the hospital for giving him hepatitis C. These people saved that persons life, and had to give some blood to do it...and it was proven that the patient pad Hep C prior to being admitted to the hospital. The evidence was that the person had given himself hepatitis by his iv drug habits, and the attorney should have known that...or at least asked that question and found out for himself. This was a very expensive process that had no merit...and guess what...the attorney did not so much as apologize for filing the suit when he should have known better. It was truly a lottery spin in his eyes...if the defense messed up there was a great deal of money to be made by the attorney and the plaintiff. And as you may know well, many cases are won on the basis of who has the attorney with the best language skills, the strongest personality in the courtroom, or maybe on the baisis of a technicalilty rather than on the baisis of real medical merit.

By the way, of the medical cases that go to court what percentage is actually decided in favor of the plaintif? I am afraid that the public believes that the winning of a lawsuit or a criminal case often has little to due with merit of the case, and a lot to do with technicalities...because attorneys are also not perfect and because our legal system is based on an argumentative process between two attorneys that system often results in nonsense results...that has nothing to do with what is truly just.

Thanks for contributing an attorney's perspective...and pardon my typos in this note.


M.

[kayakfisher]

I notice that everyone is so sure that the victims are money hungry scumbags looking for an easy buck.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">By the way...I don't recall anyone trying to paint that picture or using such inflammatory language. We are trying to make our point, but not calling anyone money hungry scumbags....I honestly believe, based on experience, that people who are not legally or medically sophisticated can be influenced, used, and abused by both systems because they are both very complicated. I have seen people who cannot truly get better after an auto accident, because if they are in the midst of a legal quest for a settlement they cannot have a positive attitude in regards to their recovery. When the settlement is over, they are suddenly psychologically relieved of the uncertainly of their financial problems, and they are then free to concentrate on getting better with all of their ability to achieve that goal. This is not because they are malingering...but because of what the insurance and legal system is doing to them. This effect is hard to explain in a short written note but it is real, and it can be a very debilitating effect on people whose intentions are not dishonerable. This is true whether or not a medical lawsuit has merit or not...to be done with it one way or another is usually good for the patient. I imagine as an medical suit attorney you have witnessed this effect?


The need to get a financial settlement i know is largely related to financial need, and often due to anger at the medical system...which indeed can be very frustrating even if things are done as well as possible, and worse when mistakes are made, and worse again if the mistakes were truly due to malpractice or carelessness.

M.

[ 12-28-2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Empire]

Tort reform. Period.

It is too bad that it will take attorneys to re write the laws that will cut their own paychecks.

Congress sets their own pay. When was the last time they took a cut?

[GOT2FISH]

Theres two sides to every story. Not long ago my wife was at work she called in a order to a local restarant for herself and sevral coworkers, while eating her taco salad something dug into the roof of her mouth she found it was a peace of a water glass. I took the rest of her meal to the restarant and was informed it was not there problem, I ask to speak to the owner who basicly told me to go ***** myself and if I felt it nessary I should sue him .Well we did and came out 5,000.00 ahead. Im not braging about this but the owner could have said Oh I'm sorry can I buy you another meal or can I refund your meal But no he had to push and I think thats what you find alot today Ive seen were I work a Million times someone calls with a damage claim and you take care of it and its over if you push and arguee you get sued.If you dismiss people and dont extend the curtisy they desive your going to get stomped people are tiered of being pushed with no way out.

[kayakfisher]

Sorry that happened Got2fish....and you are right, they were abusive and out of line. Congradulations on your award...and mostly evening the score I guess..if that was what your goal was. You definitely did that, and yes, the use of the courts to settle a matter peacefully is a good thing.

I presume the basis of the amount had something to do with the way you were treated when you approached them? (Hopefuly it was not because your wife was severely injured.)

[kayakfisher]

I also think you have touched on something here...that often the reason for a lawsuit is that the person making a normal human error could not admit the error, take the blame for it, and try to make amends in a polite and caring fashion...not out of concern for getting sued, but out of concern for the person who was hurt.

I do not condone not taking responsiblity for ones errors, but the current adversarial legal system makes it very hard to do that...ie the risk of making oneself legally vulnerable to a big suit by admitting to an error and trying to make it as right as is humanly possible may result in admitting blame that a sharp attorney is able to take unfair advantage of. This proper and honorable behavior is the best way to respond to some error we may make when it causes harm or insult to our fellow human beings in any arena I think. I suppose the real reason the courts exist is that many people are not willing to live up to such a code of honor, eh?

M.