Posted byMessage
SammyTiger
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
8655 posts

Loser-Pay Tort Reform


Spin off from the apply name Lawyers thread.
Would you support a switch to what is known as Loser Pay System in Civil Cases. This means the loser of a civil case pays for the legal fees of the winner and his legal counsel.

Pros:
1) Deters Frivolous Claims
2) Fairer Compensation for Winners (especially the unjustly accused


Cons:
1) Deters Just cases that aren't clear winners

Toss Ups:
Settlements. There is a disagreement on weather toss up cases would lead people to more likely settle or go to court. The idea is if you are more willing to settle to avoid the chance of paying the other parties legal fees or less likely to settle as to go for the greater reward of winning and incurring fees.

This is a pretty simplified version of the debate, but i wanted ot get some feed back







Back to top
Share:
Mr.Perfect
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2013
3149 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


Lawyers would never let it come to a vote





Back to top
SammyTiger
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
8655 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


They get paid either way





Back to top
Beer Bryant
Alabama Fan
In a Hidden Bunker
Member since Jan 2012
8792 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


Should make the DA's office pay legal expenses for a person they charge with a crime and that person is found not guilty.





Back to top
SammyTiger
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
8655 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

Should make the DA's office pay legal expenses for a person they charge with a crime and that person is found not guilty.


Should Criminals be charged if they lose? the difference being that a DA has an obligation to the public to try people they believe to be guilty. They also do choose what cases to bring to trial and pursue based on what they believe is the strength of the evidence.






Back to top
TupeloTiger
LSU Fan
Tupelo,Ms.[via Bastrop,La.]
Member since Jul 2004
2646 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


Texas did this ,as well as Gov. Mitch Daniels in Indiana, and business started booming, lots of new business and jobs, Insurance rates and claims/costs went down. North Dakota did too.





Back to top
JohnnyKilroy
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Member since Oct 2012
7526 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

Should make the DA's office pay legal expenses for a person they charge with a crime and that person is found not guilty.


Public defenders are free whether you win or lose






Back to top
Beer Bryant
Alabama Fan
In a Hidden Bunker
Member since Jan 2012
8792 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

Public defenders


quote:

lose






Back to top
JohnnyKilroy
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Member since Oct 2012
7526 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


Cool





Back to top
RogerTheShrubber
LSU Fan
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
87619 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:


Should Criminals be charged if they lose? the difference being that a DA has an obligation to the public to try people they believe to be guilty


They better have a goddamned good case. I say reimburse all legal fees if found innocent.

Loser pays? Yes.

I spent a week on a civil trial jury where it was an apparent money grab. The plaintiff was a POS and the company he sued spent no telling how much money on legal fees an we knew on day one there wasn't much of a case.

Afterward we were told a jury in N.O. had awarded 3.5 million on a similar suit, so I guess that's where the plaintiff got the idea.







Back to top
Jim Rockford
LSU Fan
Member since May 2011
32070 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

1) Deters Just cases that aren't clear winners


This is my objection. If you can't afford the risk of losing, you're screwed, even if you have a legitimate claim.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
48262 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

Deters Just cases that aren't clear winners
That's where it gets complicated, at least in PI Med Mal cases.

Practically speaking, an attorney sees an injured client in his office, and wants to help. He is often not going to be adequately apprised of appropriate facts (including those exonerating the defendant) until discovery, deposition and occasionally not even until trial. The result is that 40% of such cases are brought without merit.

Once the attorney realizes well into the process his case probably lacks merit, why doesn't he drop it to save time and further personal expense?
Because in the US system 30% of those meritless cases still end in findings for the plaintiff.



The European Tort Model
Here is how to reform the US Tort System. Do what is done in the EU:
--- Offer two parallel options for plaintiffs.
The plaintiff can choose either.

Option One:
An adversarial approach virtually identical to our current Tort System, but with the requirement that the loser pays the winner's costs. I'd propose the elimination of caps for pain and suffering under this option.

Option Two:
A Worker's Comp type system. Injured patients would bring claims before a review board responsible for determining if compensation is in order and, if so, how much. The Board would then authorize payment out of a "compensation pool" which would be immediately awarded to the plaintiff. For a patient to get paid, the board would not have to find the doctor at fault, or that medical negligence caused whatever pain and suffering the patient is experiencing. Money for patient relief would come from a national compensation fund paid for by malpractice premiums placed on doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc.
The goal of such a system is not to find fault or establish causation. It is to provide compensation to injured patients regardless of cause.

This dual option mechanism is employed throughout Europe. The vast majority of plaintiffs go with Option #2.

Because in the current US system only 46% of settlement money actually gets to plaintiffs, use of a European style system with a 5-10% overhead could nearly DOUBLE AVAILABLE SETTLEMENTS to US plaintiffs. It would concomitantly eliminate cause for wasteful defensive medicine knocking 10-20% off of US healthcare costs.



This post was edited on 3/24 at 10:28 pm


Back to top
SammyTiger
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
8655 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

Public defenders are free whether you win or lose


I think he means private Defense Attorneys






Back to top
JLSIX
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Apr 2010
21519 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


What kind of case was that?





Back to top
RogerTheShrubber
LSU Fan
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
87619 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

What kind of case was that?



Business was suing a machine producer claiming it didn't do what it was specked out to do. One whole week on that charade.






Back to top
JLSIX
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Apr 2010
21519 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


Interesting





Back to top
RogerTheShrubber
LSU Fan
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
87619 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


at the end of the trial we debated whether to play cards since a 5 minute verdict may hurt someones feelings.


After the trial the judge called us back and thanked us for coming to the right decision, he said he couldn't stand those leaches.


Also, he then invited the plaintiff attorneys into the room to talk to the jury and find out why we decided the way we did. We were brutally honest with them.






Back to top
foshizzle
LSU Fan
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
28616 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

There is a disagreement on weather toss up cases would lead








Back to top
Zed
Alabama Fan
Member since Feb 2010
7818 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

The goal of such a system is not to find fault or establish causation. It is to provide compensation to injured patients regardless of cause.
How does this reduce costs? Lower payouts?






Back to top
foshizzle
LSU Fan
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
28616 posts

re: Loser-Pay Tort Reform


quote:

Once the attorney realizes well into the process his case probably lacks merit, why doesn't he drop it to save time and further personal expense?
Because in the US system 30% of those meritless cases still end in findings for the plaintiff.


Also b/c you can't just drop a client for reasons only you know.






Back to top



Back to top