What about the statute of repose that Congress passed, which convinced Cessna to start making small piston airplanes again? Does that fall in the category of tort reform?
A great start on tort reform, in my opinion, would be to allow the defendant to be compensated for direct and indirect costs incurred when the defendant prevails. I have been the subject of two malpractice suits brought after the patients retained insurance checks and refused to pay their bills. Once collection efforts were instituted the patients filed suit. Both cases persisted for a couple of years and incurred a bit of expense to defend. Both cases were dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs incurred no expenses. In fact, in one case the plaintiff's potential expert, after reviewing the records, sent my attorney a letter saying he would make himself available as a defense expert in my case if desired.
The “problem” you identify that a victim of mis-directed legal action being held liable without any actual responsibility for the wrongdoing having to pay would be amazing for trial lawyers such as myself, if it did in fact exist. It doesn’t.
If the problem is people being able to file lawsuits at all, or lawyers putting their clients' interests above their own, then yes, that would solve it.Make the loser's attorney personally responsible for all of the winner's legal expenses. Problem solved.
I think that the problem is frivolous legal actions and/or lawsuits that are based on "deep pockets" rather than on any reasonable liability on the part of the defendant.If the problem is people being able to file lawsuits at all, or lawyers putting their clients' interests above their own, then yes, that would solve it.
IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.Do you think that's appropriate IF he had nothing to do with it, short of having a 3rd party install the ferry tank and hiring the ferry crew?
If the investigation determines the ferry tank was incorrectly installed, they should go after the installers. If the ferry crew mismanaged the fuel, for whatever reason, it's on them.
I find it unacceptable to go after the owner just because he has money. It's like a car owner being sued by the guy he sold the car to, because the car crashed due to an unknown manufacturing defect.
If he had nothing to do with it, the settlement should be zero.IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.
And that's where the problem lies. The innocent party should not have to bear the cost of the legal expenses. If you sue and you lose, it's all on you. That wil deter people who sue just because they hope the rich party will settle.BTW, both sides have a strong incentive to settle. Actual trials are obscenely expensive for both sides
I am president of a $50M business. We do business with some of the largest corporations in the world. Let's just say my knowledge of the topic is sufficient for my purposes.If he had nothing to do with it, the settlement should be zero.
As for the rest of your post, I think that you may not understand how most large entities operate. They are almost universally self-insured. Thus, the insurance company does not cover the risk, they merely process the claims and provide actuarial input to business decisions.
The attorneys will absolutely make certain that no such "expert" will be seated on a jury.I'm not even sure a jury trial is how these things should be decided. Average Joe (who might think the Earth is flat) might not be able to correctly determine if valve brand A was a better option versus the installed valve brand B. A jury of 12 certified maintenace people, on the other hand...
The law provides for recovery of legal costs for frivolous lawsuits in most states. So what's your point?The innocent party should not have to bear the cost of the legal expenses.
Well, since the suit was filed in California, we don't need a full list of states, do we?I will admit that I don't have the full list of states that do that for frivolous lawsuits. But it's not all of them, and it depends on a judge (?) throwing out the case.
Some of my comments applied to the general state of affairs as well. It would be better if such protections existed in all states.suit was filed in California
The (?) after the judge was there because I didn't know if it was solely a judge decision or if other legal entities were involved.And if not a judge, who would you propose should have the authority to declare a lawsuit frivolous?
Not in any practical sense. One must prove that it is frivolous. That has it's own expense and is rarely worth it. What people are suggesting is the "English Rule", you lose, you pay. Very different from what we have now.The law provides for recovery of legal costs for frivolous lawsuits in most states. So what's your point?
If he had nothing to do with it, wouldn’t the only fair settlement be $0?IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.
Not only should the settlement be $0, he should not have to bear the cost of hiring and paying lawyers to set aside a lawsuit that had no basis in any fact other than that he has "deep pockets".If he had nothing to do with it, wouldn’t the only fair settlement be $0?
Many people suggesting the English rule have never litigated under the English rule. It has its own set of perverse incentives.Not in any practical sense. One must prove that it is frivolous. That has it's own expense and is rarely worth it. What people are suggesting is the "English Rule", you lose, you pay. Very different from what we have now.
I agree that we need laws that require judges to do some gatekeeping in conjunction with requirements to plead some facts that suggests liability might be found against a particular defendant. Combine that with liberal rules allowing adding defendants if the plaintiffs discover facts later that implicates additional parties. The occasional attorney having to pony up for the legal expenses of a party then named in a suit with out a factual basis, would definitely curb the practice of suing them all, and let the jury sort it out.Make the loser's attorney personally responsible for all of the winner's legal expenses. Problem solved.
The fact that Brin's liability is unknown should mandate he not be sued until it is known. Under your hypothetical, the plaintiff's will learn of Brin's perfidy upon receipt of the first responses to written discovery requests as other defendants will not want to take the rap for something that Brin did and likely will rat him out at first opportunity. When that happens, plaintiff's amend their complaint to name Brin.IF he had nothing to do with it, then the insurance company lawyers will have a strong position in the mediation, and the settlement will be low.
But here's the catch. Neither side knows what is true until discovery is complete. For all you know, Brin was told the job really needed a special valve, but that valve would take 3 months to ship, and he didn't want to wait to start squiring his guests around Fiji, so he threatened the installer or waved money at them. You're just ASSSUMING Brin is blameless. Right now that is an unknown.
Discovery will uncover all all the relevant evidence. All parties will be deposed, email records will be provided, etc etc. Once that is all done, if the facts support your assumption that Brin was blameless, then the process will likely peter out.
Keep in mind Brin is only going to pay the deductible, unless he committed some really gross act of negligence to void his coverage. The insurance company is on the hook for everything from the deductible up to the limit of coverage. I assume billionaires have astronomical coverage, which means the insurance company is going to fight like hell to keep the settlement close to the deductible.
Sadly it works that way in in Tort 101 but not so much in the real worlds of trial lawyers…in my case an unknown maintenance company, an FBO who happened to be on my home field and never as much touched my Arrow, and Garmin all sued and not a single Garmin product in the aircraft. All had to retain counsel and travel to an out of state court to seek relief.The fact that Brin's liability is unknown should mandate he not be sued until it is known. Under your hypothetical, the plaintiff's will learn of Brin's perfidy upon receipt of the first responses to written discovery requests as other defendants will not want to take the rap for something that Brin did and likely will rat him out at first opportunity. When that happens, plaintiff's amend their complaint to name Brin.
I know it doesn't CURRENTLY work that way. I am advocating that one of the kinds of tort reformed needed is to sanction attorneys for naming defendants without a shred of evidence that liability might accrue. Admittedly, the wrongfully named defendant would move/sue for their attorney's fees, but that just involves more attorney's fees to be paid by the wrongfully named defendant. Courts should be required to automatically award costs and fees, payable by the plaintiffs' attorneys, when there is no basis for fraudulently naming a party. Most of these BS suits are pretty obvious, like a suit after an engine failure sues both Bendix and Slick claiming their magneto caused the accident. Both can't reasonably be guilty.Sadly it works that way in in Tort 101 but not so much in the real worlds of trial lawyers…in my case an unknown maintenance company, an FBO who happened to be on my home field and never as much touched my Arrow, and Garmin all sued and not a single Garmin product in the aircraft. All had to retain counsel and travel to an out of state court to seek relief.
That is actually a high bar. There is more than a shred of evidence in the Brin suit....for naming defendants without a shred of evidence that liability might accrue.
Is there?That is actually a high bar. There is more than a shred of evidence in the Brin suit.
Just think… that flat earth juror gets to vote.And that's where the problem lies. The innocent party should not have to bear the cost of the legal expenses. If you sue and you lose, it's all on you. That wil deter people who sue just because they hope the rich party will settle.
I'm not even sure a jury trial is how these things should be decided. Average Joe (who might think the Earth is flat) might not be able to correctly determine if valve brand A was a better option versus the installed valve brand B. A jury of 12 certified maintenace people, on the other hand...
I know it doesn't CURRENTLY work that way. I am advocating that one of the kinds of tort reformed needed is to sanction attorneys for naming defendants without a shred of evidence that liability might accrue. Admittedly, the wrongfully named defendant would move/sue for their attorney's fees, but that just involves more attorney's fees to be paid by the wrongfully named defendant. Courts should be required to automatically award costs and fees, payable by the plaintiffs' attorneys, when there is no basis for fraudulently naming a party. Most of these BS suits are pretty obvious, like a suit after an engine failure sues both Bendix and Slick claiming their magneto caused the accident. Both can't reasonably be guilty.
That makes me shudder, but it's a constitutional right (brought to you by Carl's Jr.) and any attempt at tweaking that would go down a very slippery slope, in my opinion. Doesn't take much to go back to three-fifths of a vote.Just think… that flat earth juror gets to vote.
I was making a joke. Not trying to have a conversation.That makes me shudder, but it's a constitutional right (brought to you by Carl's Jr.) and any attempt at tweaking that would go down a very slippery slope, in my opinion. Doesn't take much to go back to three-fifths of a vote.
But juries are supposed to be made of "one's peers". An argument should be made that a jury member with no knowledge on the topic and actions standing trial is not "one's peer".
I was speaking conceptually and mostly responding to cases where a manufacturer is sued, even through none of their product was in the plane. I was not making a specific, legalistic proposal for legislation.That is actually a high bar. There is more than a shred of evidence in the Brin suit.
In theory, but judges need stronger mandates to make it happen.This remedy already exists
In theory, but judges need stronger mandates to make it happen.
Do truck drivers endeavor to make less income than possible? What about dentists? Plumbers? Pilots?Despite their constant chanting about truth and justice, the top priority of the legal profession is that attorneys make as much money as possible. It doesn't matter if they are trial attorneys, judges, or legislators, the priority remains the same.
Despite their constant chanting about truth and justice, the top priority of the legal profession is that attorneys make as much money as possible. It doesn't matter if they are trial attorneys, judges, or legislators, the priority remains the same.
That could depend on whether their position is elected or appointed.Don't judges make the same money regardless of how they rule?
That could depend on whether their position is elected or appointed.