- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Make an argument against a "loser pays" judicial system
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:46 pm to Volmanac
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:46 pm to Volmanac
quote:
I don't understand how supporting a broad and healthy civil court system is "liberal" in any way. It's the natural alternative to a heavy government regulatory scheme.
lol who downvotes this statement? ^^^^
0
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:47 pm to Cosmo
OP and company don't understand that they are presenting a risky "solution" to a problem that doesn't really exist. Claims that are truly frivolous are almost never taken by an attorney. Practicing law is really expensive lol.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:52 pm to Volmanac
quote:
Claims that are truly frivolous are almost never taken by an attorney.
wut
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:53 pm to Volmanac
there are bullshite claims that lead to cost of defense settlements (which are settlements and are outside of this discussion directly, but i can see how they could be affected indirectly). i do not dispute that COD cases occur here or there
but LA has a strong summary judgment system and often limits the shite out of claims. i'll give you a great example: slip and falls. we have one of the stricter premises liability laws in the country. i'm not disputing whether these claims are frivolous or not, but they are fricking regulated here already. most lawyers do not take these cases accordingly. with a "loser pays" almost none will. that is a very small % of the claims
the claims that really affect people are car wrecks and medical malpractice. car wrecks involve pretty clear liability and loser pays will make them more expensive. i'm not an expert on MM, but they're already very expensive and we have not only a cap on damages, but also a review panel. i could see loser pays having an effect, but the thing about MM is that they can involve very costly damages
but LA has a strong summary judgment system and often limits the shite out of claims. i'll give you a great example: slip and falls. we have one of the stricter premises liability laws in the country. i'm not disputing whether these claims are frivolous or not, but they are fricking regulated here already. most lawyers do not take these cases accordingly. with a "loser pays" almost none will. that is a very small % of the claims
the claims that really affect people are car wrecks and medical malpractice. car wrecks involve pretty clear liability and loser pays will make them more expensive. i'm not an expert on MM, but they're already very expensive and we have not only a cap on damages, but also a review panel. i could see loser pays having an effect, but the thing about MM is that they can involve very costly damages
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:54 pm to Cosmo
quote:
wut
outside of med mal (b/c that is it's own separate thing with a completely different procedure these days), where do you think these frivolous cases are coming from? i mean which behaviors lead to the suit?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
outside of med mal
well this is my world bruh, thus the "wut"
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
Here is a simple question, Slow. It only requires a yes or no answer to most critical thinkers. And I believe that you are one of us.
Q: Does the high level of litigation across the board in the U.S. today promote economic growth or retard it?
Q: Does the high level of litigation across the board in the U.S. today promote economic growth or retard it?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:53 pm to Zach
quote:
It only requires a yes or no answer
quote:
Does the high level of litigation across the board in the U.S. today promote economic growth or retard it?
quote:
It only requires a yes or no answer
...
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
whatever costs that you think you save will actually increase
So, explain the contradiction and why you oppose loser pays?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:07 pm to Zach
quote:
explain the contradiction
i already did
the math only makes sense if you think the majority of claims would not result in awarded damages (no liability/breach)
if 50% + 1 are pro-plaintiff, costs will be higher for the defense (we're obviously assuming a relatively proportionate amount of costs, which is reasonable considering the hundreds of thousands of claims made every year in the US)
i'd wager that 90% of claims (i'm being very conservative) would result in damages for the plaintiff. that means that defendants would recoup expenses 10% of the time and they'd have to pay out 90% of the time. how does that lower their costs?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
and as an answer
retard, obviously
but it's a regulatory mechanism, which will always retard growth. however, it's a necessary evil. if you damage another, you are responsible for that damage. if we don't adhere to that principle, then we have no property rights outside of physical force (as there is no system to recoup our damaged property without a legal system). even anarcho-capitalists believe in a court system (just a private one, that i believe is not workable)
quote:
Does the high level of litigation across the board in the U.S. today promote economic growth or retard it?
retard, obviously
but it's a regulatory mechanism, which will always retard growth. however, it's a necessary evil. if you damage another, you are responsible for that damage. if we don't adhere to that principle, then we have no property rights outside of physical force (as there is no system to recoup our damaged property without a legal system). even anarcho-capitalists believe in a court system (just a private one, that i believe is not workable)
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
That's absurd. If Loser Pays went into action the number of lawsuits would plummet. Lawyers would not want to take on marginal cases and you know it.
Liability would decrease for businesses. We would have economic growth that would skyrocket. Of course, it will never happen because of the lawyer lobby with the Dem party.
But it's nice to dream.
Liability would decrease for businesses. We would have economic growth that would skyrocket. Of course, it will never happen because of the lawyer lobby with the Dem party.
But it's nice to dream.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:18 pm to Zach
quote:
If Loser Pays went into action the number of lawsuits would plummet. Lawyers would not want to take on marginal cases and you know it.
what is a "marginal" case? are you talking liability or damages? it's an important distinction
there are a lot of cases that i have to pass on with clear liability, because it isn't financially worthwhile (small claim and not worth what it would cost me per hour if i billed). i would take these on in a heart beat if i knew the defendant would pay me in the end.
used car dealerships would fear the shite out of me
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what is a "marginal" case? are you talking liability or damages? it's an important distinction
OK, you're getting stupid now. Let me explain in few words.
LOSER PAYS IN ALL CASES
LOSER PAYS IN ALL CASES
Do you understand? I don't care if it's a traffic violation or Impeachment of the President. Loser always pays.
Now...Don't you think that would increase Biz Con? Don''t you think that would create massive economic growth? Don't you think lawyers would get pissed?
Your only response is gonna be 'social justice' and I think that's gonna give you some butt hurt to admit.
At any rate, I've enjoyed the discussion and I'm out for the night. Stay well, Slow.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
Medical mal
I know of many examples of frivolous law suits that I will not disclose on this forum. I also know of the annual cost I have to pay to protect myself and my business. You underestimate the cost that goes into health care because of this given your personal occupation. I know many older physicians who are frustrated as it is not as fun anymore die to defensive medicine.
I know of many examples of frivolous law suits that I will not disclose on this forum. I also know of the annual cost I have to pay to protect myself and my business. You underestimate the cost that goes into health care because of this given your personal occupation. I know many older physicians who are frustrated as it is not as fun anymore die to defensive medicine.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:33 pm to Zach
quote:
Don't you think lawyers would get pissed?
i'd love it b/c i'd be able to take marginal cases in terms of damages with clear liability and still get paid
this would only affect cases that have questionable liability. then the lawyers would be taking a risk by suing and this rule may decrease the number of claims made
the vast majority of cases that lawyers take involve pretty clear liability, though. this would lead to more litigation (because you're incentivizing filing suit by increasing recovery in cases of clear liability)
i mean i can ask this again in a slightly different way. let's say you were hit from behind while in a car by another car (aka, 100% clear liability). why would you NOT tell your lawyer to sue and take the case to trial (assuming you could live without the money in the mean time)?
A. if you don't sue and go to trial, you only get 67% of your settlement (after paying your attorney 33%)
B. if you do sue and go to trial, you get 100% of the award (and the defense pays for your attorney and all the costs of your case)
B is the rational choice (because the client at issue gets more money)
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:34 pm to lsusaintsfan4life
quote:
Medical mal
I know of many examples of frivolous law suits that I will not disclose on this forum. I also know of the annual cost I have to pay to protect myself and my business. You underestimate the cost that goes into health care because of this given your personal occupation. I know many older physicians who are frustrated as it is not as fun anymore die to defensive medicine.
i've already somewhat excluded med mal, as its a beast of its own...hell it already has its own litigation scheme that no other litigation has to go through, in order to decrease the # of claims filed
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yet there is no compensation for the time and effort a physician has to endure going through one of these frivolous suits. A loser pays situation would be welcome in medicine.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:44 pm to lsusaintsfan4life
quote:
A loser pays situation would be welcome in medicine.
i presume you mean WITH the cap we have in place in LA?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 5:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
The cap has helped Louisiana as it keeps malpractice insurance costs lower allowing physicians to practice. See states that don't have neurosurgeons or enough OB/GYNs and ask why?
I would welcome doubling the cap if we had a loser pays system. I stand behind my practice with no fear. However, if I ever made a mistake I agree that the patient should be compensated.
How about we limit the % contingency fee that lawyers extract from clients in cases of med mal? Why should the attorney receive money that is needed for future medical care?
I would welcome doubling the cap if we had a loser pays system. I stand behind my practice with no fear. However, if I ever made a mistake I agree that the patient should be compensated.
How about we limit the % contingency fee that lawyers extract from clients in cases of med mal? Why should the attorney receive money that is needed for future medical care?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News