- 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: Spinoff: Sue Happy Society
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:11 pm to NaturalBeam
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:11 pm to NaturalBeam
well defense attorneys have a perverse incentive to ensure that rewards keep flowing but with enough moral victories to claim a slowing of the flow. they need plaintiff-friendly judges and laws or else they will be out of a job, too
1
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
[edited]
So no, I don't think LABI and the insurance industry get a free pass for the current state of affairs. Both sides abuse the system.
So no, I don't think LABI and the insurance industry get a free pass for the current state of affairs. Both sides abuse the system.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:For sure - but Judges also have an incentive to keep their job - and I don't practice in Orleans Parish, but I sure don't run into many of these "plaintiff-bought Judges" around this very conservative State.
well defense attorneys have a perverse incentive to ensure that rewards keep flowing but with enough moral victories to claim a slowing of the flow. they need plaintiff-friendly judges and laws or else they will be out of a job, too
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:16 pm to NorthShoreTiger44
There is no true demarcation point, just a gradual escalation. In the 1920's, workplace safety suits began to gain ground. In the late 50's, the courts created the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. I would say the 60's is when it noticeably appreciated due to the Civil Rights movement and the new restrictions on hiring, firing, and refusing service. The 70's was a shitshow in family law. By the 80's, it was really prevalent in every day torts like drunk driving and negligence. During the 90's, it went full PC insanity and has only accelerated at a parabolic rate since.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:17 pm to boosiebadazz
the system screwed that guy. those are the tales of people who are hurt by the current system that rewards cut throat behavior and punishes being a good Samaritan. kind of like how consumers of family law are absolutely destroyed by the system that lawyers, judges, and their benefactors in the legislature create
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
Family law everywhere is a nightmare of a system.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:20 pm to Tiger Ryno
if i had won the powerball i'd probably become an advocate for family law reform. that shite is TERRIBLE
it's also completely patriarchal and based in the customs and culture of like 200 years ago
it's also completely patriarchal and based in the customs and culture of like 200 years ago
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
I would make a rule...if one spouse commits adultery they forfit their parental rights and get nothing.
I've seen too many dudes whose wife cheats...leaves him...takes the kids gets full or majority custody and the dude has to pay her while she has another man living with his kids.
I've seen too many dudes whose wife cheats...leaves him...takes the kids gets full or majority custody and the dude has to pay her while she has another man living with his kids.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
There is a flip side to this crazy litigious society. It makes people and companies very aware of their actions and they take steps to prevent wrongdoings. I'd rather live with too much litigation than too little.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:23 pm to Tiger Ryno
Family court is a whole different level of fricked up
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:27 pm to barry
oh i believe in regulation by litigation, but when you have parts of the system cheating society, it needs to be revised
the real killer is the small injury industry. the claim-mills that settle 100,000, $1500 claims/year has a much higher impact than the 500 instances of crippling, serious injury of $150,000 value. if it was economical to fight the BS lowball claims, and business did, we would all be better off
the real killer is the small injury industry. the claim-mills that settle 100,000, $1500 claims/year has a much higher impact than the 500 instances of crippling, serious injury of $150,000 value. if it was economical to fight the BS lowball claims, and business did, we would all be better off
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:39 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:
For sure - but Judges also have an incentive to keep their job - and I don't practice in Orleans Parish, but I sure don't run into many of these "plaintiff-bought Judges" around this very conservative State.
I don't think it;s judges being bought, as much as it is a result of the judges being elected. They want the people to be happy, those are their constituents. Also, at least in Orleans, many are just inept former plaintiff lawyers.
A great quote from a former CDC chief judge, in a pretrial conference, after saying he thinks the 100-200k case was worth "3" - "What? No, not $300,000, I meant $3 million. This a maritime case."
Another judge in CDC - Lawyer - "Your honor, there is no evidence of any negligence here." Judge - "Well, he [plaintiff] is here and he is hurt, so somebody must have done something wrong."
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:42 pm to BrotherEsau
if there was ever an attorney who was willing to throw his/her career away and spend about a year recording conversations, it could create a major black eye for all three sides of civil litigation
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
I agree that the plaintiff mills are corrupting the system, but I don't know how you fix that without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I'd be ok with lowering the jury threshold if the prescriptive period were pushed to two years and increase funding to the JDCs were tied to it. You can lower the threshold but you've also got to provide for the increased load on the system.
I'd be ok with lowering the jury threshold if the prescriptive period were pushed to two years and increase funding to the JDCs were tied to it. You can lower the threshold but you've also got to provide for the increased load on the system.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:45 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
but I don't know how you fix that
i'll tell you how it's going to be fixed: $0 jury thresholds. after JBE completely pisses off the GOP and taints policies associated with liberals, the next Gov will have the political capital to pull that one off.
quote:
I'd be ok with lowering the jury threshold if the prescriptive period were pushed to two years
well the 2 year period sounds great but there are typically tradeoffs. biggest one being the lack of ability to have pleadings relate back. you don't get to add unknown defendants after that line. you can't really have both so that's another policy consideration you need to think about
i'll tell you what LA gets right and that's the direct action statute
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News