Tort Reform....Anyone Else Interested?

[Revoltingest]

I don't want actual victims dissuaded from filing legitimate lawsuits because there's a chance they might lose.

If they lose a suit they file, they've done damage to the innocent defendant.
If the plaintiff shouldn't pay for the innocent party's costs, then it's an even
greater injustice for the defendant to be stuck with them.

 

[Curious George]

That IS a good idea.
Frivolous lawsuits are a stain on the justice system, but I don't like the idea of loser pays all costs and fees to discourage them.
I don't want actual victims dissuaded from filing legitimate lawsuits because there's a chance they might lose.
I like the idea of plaintiffs having to prove merit before proceeding though.
Kind of the same function as a grand jury but hopefully more useful.

Loser pays doesn't discourage them. Poor people are judgement proof. Rich people have money to blow. All this does is make it so middle class is less likely to file gray are cases as most frivolous suits are filed for emotional reasons. Also, this makes it so people need lawyers to access court system because you cannot collect attorney fees if you have no attorney.

 

[freethinker44]

If they lose a suit they file, they've done damage to the innocent defendant.

You have much more faith in the justice system than I do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, suit would get dismissed and sanctions would be held. Also, it would not cost what you have stated...your exaggeration shows the ridiculousness of your argument.

Fool!
I actually understated costs which I'd anticipate in a determined court battle.
I've spent much more as a defendant, as have others I know.

This shows the ridiculousness of your objections.

A more likely frivolous lawsuit would be that you evicted someone and had to initiate court proceedings to do so, and they filed a counter claim that you breached the contract first by not providing livable housing. And the figure of court costs and attorney fees is closer to 10k.

It could be that low.
It could also be much much more.
It depends upon what the tenant claims, & the amount of the suit...
...which could be over $1,000,000 in my personal experience.
Costs escalate with the amount claimed (cuz of higher risk).
Costs increase even more in federal court.

You're not a landlord, I assume.

 

[freethinker44]

Loser pays doesn't discourage them.

Sure it does. In a "loser pay" system whoever has the most money wins.
All they have to do is drag it on until the other party can't pay any more to defend/prosecute.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have much more faith in the justice system than I do.

Faith?
There must be some misunderstanding here.
It takes no faith to see that a defendant spends money to win a suit,
& that this cost is an unjust burden to the party which did nothing wrong.
It's a loss that the plaintiff wrongly caused.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure it does. In a "loser pay" system whoever has the most money wins.
All they have to do is drag it on until the other party can't pay any more to defend/prosecute.

Actually, you have it backwards.
Under the "American rule", if a wealthy disingenuous plaintiff wants to break someone, he can
file suit with impunity, knowing that the defendant will spend money which cannot be recovered.
Under the loser-pay system ("English rule"), the plaintiff has something at risk.
Most of the western world uses the English rule.
Americastan is backwards because it's been run by attorneys for too long.

 

[Curious George]

Fool!
I actually understated costs which I'd anticipate in a determined court battle.
I've spent much more as a defendant, as have others I know.

This shows the ridiculousness of your objections.

It could be that low.
It could also be much much more.
It depends upon what the tenant claims, & the amount of the suit...
...which could be over $1,000,000 in my personal experience.
Costs escalate with the amount claimed (cuz of higher risk).
Costs increase even more in federal court.

You're not a landlord, I assume.

You can try to fib all you want. But you asserted you think it would cost 100k to defend against a frivolous child support case of someone you have never met. One of us is off in our figures and it is apparent that it is not me.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, you have it backwards.
Under the "American rule", if a wealthy disingenuous plaintiff wants to break someone, he can
file suit with impunity, knowing that the defendant will spend money which cannot be recovered.
Under the loser-pay system ("English rule"), the plaintiff has something at risk.
Most of the western world uses the English rule.
Americastan is backwards because it's been run by attorneys for too long.

Except we have loser pays in both Texas to some extent and in Alaska. It doesn't deter litigation. And it certainly makes court systems less accessible without an attorney. It also adds an extra step to litigation. You can have the changes you want without using loser pays. Why not simply make frivolous lawsuits subject to mandatory attorney fees and curtail judicial discretion on what amounts to a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can try to fib all you want.

Pbbbbttttttt!
You know not of what you speak.

But you asserted you think it would cost 100k to defend against a frivolous child support case of someone you have never met. One of us is off in our figures and it is apparent that it is not me.

It was an arbitrary figure to illustrate how it works.
There were other implicit assumptions, eg....
- I met her.
- She has enuf money to be a ripe target.
- She'd be weak enuf to fold, & pay up.
- That no one would be so blitheringly dumb as to miss the element of humor indicating it was an
entirely hypothetical scenario. Criminy....even the defendant & young son nodded their approval.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except we have loser pays in both Texas to some extent and in Alaska. It doesn't deter litigation. And it certainly makes court systems less accessible without an attorney. It also adds an extra step to litigation. You can have the changes you want without using loser pays. Why not simply make frivolous lawsuits subject to mandatory attorney fees and curtail judicial discretion on what amounts to a frivolous lawsuit.

I don't live in TX or AK.
And you haven't made a case that loser pay fails to curtail
frivolous, vexatious or extortion themed suits.
Having dealt with many, I know wherefrom I speak.
But you.....what's your business experience...supersizing fries?
Ever been subject to such a suit?

Essentially, you're arguing that it's good public policy that I can use the courts to
extort money from 4con. If she spends $50K defending against a frivolous suit,
that's just her tough luck....it serves the greater good of encouraging law suits.

 

[Curious George]

I don't live in TX or AK.
And you haven't made a case that loser pay fails to curtail frivolous, vexatious or extortion themed suits.
Having dealt with many, I know wherefrom I speak.
But you.....what's your business experience...supersizing fries?
Ever been subject to such a suit?

Essentially, you're arguing that it's good public policy that I can use the courts to extort
money from 4con. If she spends $50K defending against a frivolous suit, that's just her
tough luck....it serves the greater good of encouraging law suits.

If it was truly a frivolous suit sanctions would be awarded. But either it isn't a truly frivolous suit, or it is your imaginings running wild again.

A truly frivolous suit would be easy to dismiss, you could write the motion yourself. You have quoted your attorney before noting that you could have a slam dunk case, take it to court, and win 90% of the time. This is true. But it is not dealing with frivolous suits. Worse still, the type of plaintiff with whom you have likely struggled is not going to end up paying you anything. There is a good chance they are judgment proof. But I would also like to note that if you are as experienced in law as you represent from your tenure as a landlord, there is a good chance that all those suits are not frivolous at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it was truly a frivolous suit sanctions would be awarded. But either it isn't a truly frivolous suit, or it is your imaginings running wild again.

You say that.
But you don't know.

Legal costs are rarely won. I know of only 2 here.
One was a landlord defendant. The other was a tree service plaintiff.
Neither was able to collect.
I say that plaintiff's should also have to post a bond to file suit, just in case they have to pay damages to the defendant.

A truly frivolous suit would be easy to dismiss, you could write the motion yourself. You have quoted your attorney before noting that you could have a slam dunk case, take it to court, and win 90% of the time. This is true. But it is not dealing with frivolous suits. Worse still, the type of plaintiff with whom you have likely struggled is not going to end up paying you anything. There is a good chance they are judgment proof. But I would also like to note that if you are as experienced in law as you represent from your tenure as a landlord, there is a good chance that all those suits are not frivolous at all.

Again, you simply don't know.
I've even dealt with a couple pros, whose sole business was filing
such suits against businesses they come in contact with. They're well
known in the community, & yet there are no sanctions against them.
Your "fib" accusation bespeaks an uninformed need to believe otherwise.

 

[Curious George]

You say that.
But you don't know.

Again, you simply don't know.
I've even dealt with a couple pros, whose sole business was filing
such suits against businesses they come in contact with. They're well
known in the community, & yet there are no sanctions against them.
Your "fib" accusation bespeaks an uninformed need to believe otherwise.

Lawyers who take less than likely wins is far different from lawyers who take frivolous suits.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lawyers who take less than likely wins is far different from lawyers who take frivolous suits.

That's a non sequitur, in addition to being wrong.

 

[Curious George]

That's a non sequitur, in addition to being wrong.

It was a comment on your suggestion of what you know.

Again, the courts can be changed without loser pays. You want to talk about helpful reform, great. You want to talk about major alterations which limit access to courts without an attorney and unfairly burden middle class peoples...Pbbbttttt.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was a comment on your suggestion of what you know.

I know much about the cases I've seen & been directly involved in.
You know absolutely nothing of them, but you opine with pretense of authority.
Such hubris discredits you.

Again, the courts can be changed without loser pays. You want to talk about helpful reform, great. You want to talk about major alterations which limit access to courts without an attorney and unfairly burden middle class peoples...Pbbbttttt.

The thread is about reform, but you only defend the status quo with insults & bogus claims.
Try to be interesting instead of annoying.
You could make a serious proposal, & defend it.

 

[Curious George]

I know much about the cases I've seen & been directly involved in.
You know absolutely nothing of them, but you opine with pretense of authority.
Such hubris discredits you.

The thread is about reform, but you only defend the status quo with insults & bogus claims.
Try to be interesting instead of annoying.
You could make a serious proposal, & defend it.

I already told you the reform that would get you what is necessary. Make attorney fees and court costs be a mandatory award for frivolous cases. Further define frivolity by statute to limit judicial discretion.

 

[Curious George]

I know much about the cases I've seen & been directly involved in.
You know absolutely nothing of them, but you opine with pretense of authority.
Such hubris discredits you.

Sorry your complaints about the court system always seem to follow the complaints that are standard for slum lords. However, your general demeanor and awareness of law bespeaks of a responsible land lord. However, I have met enough slum lords to know that most aren't bad guys. They are simply people who either through over extension or ignorance have hurt others or violated laws. Good people out to make a buck often find themselves in an area which they struggle to stay afloat. Bad carpenters blame their tools and bad landlords blame their tenants and lawyers.

You want loser pays despite it not changing the number of cases filed in Alaska. While Texas cases have diminished somewhat this is largely due to other tort reform in the state prior to enacting loser pays statutes.

Ultimately I defend one aspect of the status quo, because it works. Not for lawyers....there are plenty of those in a loser pays system, but for people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry your complaints about the court system always seem to follow the complaints that are standard for slum lords.

You continue to annoy.
You know nothing of landlording, as evidenced by your comment.
I did high end student housing, class B&A office, self storage, & industrial real estate.
"Slum lord"....you're just inventing this crap ad hoc....without even asking a single question.
Please go bother someone else.