Pete, it's called Tort reform

[hookedonears]

If you are truly, truly concerned about these petty law suits like the one filed against Disney concerning the Sea Racer accident, the ballot box is the place to stop them.

 

[Halloweenqueen]

Watch "Hot Coffee". It may change your mind on tort reform.

 

[mikelan6]

Watch "Hot Coffee". It may change your mind on tort reform.

Yes. That was a great documentary. A bit frightening as well.

 

[hookedonears]

Watch "Hot Coffee". It may change your mind on tort reform.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh No.

 

[Disney Anna]

Watch "Hot Coffee". It may change your mind on tort reform.

Couldn't agree more. What an excellent documentary. Shows how the term "Tort Reform" is trumped up propaganda by big business.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

The policy which should be in place, which is used in the UK and other "well-civilized" nations, is that is any civil lawsuit the losing side is responsible for the legal fees of the prevailing side.

In a situation such as the boat incident, any legal fees Disney incurs would be paid by the filer. Disney would then find it very worthwhile to not settle for petty suits. And maybe the attorney who actually files the suit might have to pay.

 

[AJRitz]

The policy which should be in place, which is used in the UK and other "well-civilized" nations, is that is any civil lawsuit the losing side is responsible for the legal fees of the prevailing side.

In a situation such as the boat incident, any legal fees Disney incurs would be paid by the filer. Disney would then find it very worthwhile to not settle for petty suits. And maybe the attorney who actually files the suit might have to pay.

Loser pays sounds good at first. But in practice, it means that the only people who can afford to pursue justice and those who can already afford to lose. Even a strong factual case is subject to the vagaries of trial presentation and the necessity of persuading a majority of a jury (not to mention the myriad legal hurdles that have already been placed on the books to try to keep claims out of courtrooms, like short statutes of limitations, calculated from the occurrence of the injury rather than discovery of the injury).

A complainant can convince half of the jury that the defendant is 100% liable, and still lose. Another complainant that convinces 7 jurors that the defendant is 60% liable wins. But the first defendant has to pay the defendant's legal fees? How is that reasonable? (I don't know that any states require unanimous juries in civil cases).

 

[disneyholic family]

The policy which should be in place, which is used in the UK and other "well-civilized" nations, is that is any civil lawsuit the losing side is responsible for the legal fees of the prevailing side.

In a situation such as the boat incident, any legal fees Disney incurs would be paid by the filer. Disney would then find it very worthwhile to not settle for petty suits. And maybe the attorney who actually files the suit might have to pay.

this only works in a non-jury system...
the moment you add a jury into the mix, the side with the deep pockets is at high risk of losing even if they're not at fault..

the jury looks at the poor injured person and the rich company on the other side and figures in any case the insurance company will pay for everything - and so they find for the poor injured person, even if the company really wasn't at fault...

 

[Cheshire Figment]

I think part of this might deal with the "contingency fee" effect. Just as the attorney in a civil suit will normally get their fees from the judgement, the attorney would have financial liability also.

As an example of this, several years ago I was considering a medical malpractice lawsuit. I went to one of the top malpractice lawyers in New York City. After we had a discussion, his opinion was that I did not have much of a case and the chance of an award was so low that he would handle it only on a "time and expenses" basis and not on contingency.

So if a lawyer feels that the chance of winning a case is not likely, they can do it as non-contingency.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

I think part of this might deal with the "contingency fee" effect. Just as the attorney in a civil suit will normally get their fees from the judgement, the attorney would have financial liability also.

As an example of this, several years ago I was considering a medical malpractice lawsuit. I went to one of the top malpractice lawyers in New York City. After we had a discussion, his opinion was that I did not have much of a case and the chance of an award was so low that he would handle it only on a "time and expenses" basis and not on contingency.

So if a lawyer feels that the chance of winning a case is not likely, they can do it as non-contingency.

OK, hi.

I worked for a medical malpractice attorney for eight and a half years. We did many, many birth injury cases.

One of the reasons he retired was the mass push at "tort reform" in New York City.

We turned down many cases (90%) because they were not "worth it." What that means is that either the plaintiff was not injured to an extent that a jury or settlement would award them enough money to cover the cost of a malpractice case (many times upwards of $20,000 for a five year investigation to trial case), or that unfortunately, the case was venued in a conservative enough county that the injuries would have to be completely catastrophic with clear as day negligence to warrant a trial, because the juries in that county were SO often pro-defendant.

Hot Coffee is an excellent documentary. It highlights several cases where there was such obvious wrongdoing on behalf of the defendants, and many of the plaintiffs don't get a fair shake, whether it be in the courtroom or in the newspapers.

The media, and the public is SO quick to misjudge a lawsuit as frivolous, when in reality, there are millions of good would-be plaintiffs whose cases get turned down because they happen to live in an "unfriendly" county or state. And what happens is that we (the public) end up paying for their medical care, rather than the insurance companies of the doctors who CAUSED the injury to begin with.

Yes, there are attorneys who take silly lawsuits because they think they can make some money. But the VAST majority of attorneys who are attacked by these tort reforms work on a contingency basis, and wouldn't dream of taking a case that they think they would lose.

Edited to add: I don't think the Sea Racer lawsuit is COMPLETELY stupid. My husband wouldn't dream of letting me drive one of those. I have no depth perception, cannot judge distance at ALL, and would very likely crash.

 

[dpuck1998]

OK, hi.

I worked for a medical malpractice attorney for eight and a half years. We did many, many birth injury cases.

One of the reasons he retired was the mass push at "tort reform" in New York City.

We turned down many cases (90%) because they were not "worth it." What that means is that either the plaintiff was not injured to an extent that a jury or settlement would award them enough money to cover the cost of a malpractice case (many times upwards of $20,000 for a five year investigation to trial case), or that unfortunately, the case was venued in a conservative enough county that the injuries would have to be completely catastrophic with clear as day negligence to warrant a trial, because the juries in that county were SO often pro-defendant.

Hot Coffee is an excellent documentary. It highlights several cases where there was such obvious wrongdoing on behalf of the defendants, and many of the plaintiffs don't get a fair shake, whether it be in the courtroom or in the newspapers.

The media, and the public is SO quick to misjudge a lawsuit as frivolous, when in reality, there are millions of good would-be plaintiffs whose cases get turned down because they happen to live in an "unfriendly" county or state. And what happens is that we (the public) end up paying for their medical care, rather than the insurance companies of the doctors who CAUSED the injury to begin with.

Yes, there are attorneys who take silly lawsuits because they think they can make some money. But the VAST majority of attorneys who are attacked by these tort reforms work on a contingency basis, and wouldn't dream of taking a case that they think they would lose.

Edited to add: I don't think the Sea Racer lawsuit is COMPLETELY stupid. My husband wouldn't dream of letting me drive one of those. I have no depth perception, cannot judge distance at ALL, and would very likely crash.

If that is the case, you shouldn't drive one. Disney shouldn't be forced to tell you not to drive one. Personal responsibility on your part is required.

 

[WaltD4Me]

If that is the case, you shouldn't drive one. Disney shouldn't be forced to tell you not to drive one. Personal responsibility on your part is required.

Exactly.

 

[bean bunny]

Watch "Hot Coffee". It may change your mind on tort reform.

I JUST finished watching this. So eye opening and truthfully appalling in many ways what happens to injured people in our country.