- 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: Switch the outcome, what could be done to stop trial lawyers?
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:46 pm to oilattorney4lsu
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:46 pm to oilattorney4lsu
Well then why are you opposed to eliminating elected judges in lieu of reducing the threshold?
Seems a fair compromise.
I’d be fine with adding judges too in jurisdictions where there are backlogged dockets.
Further, if we had uniform jurisdictional limits on city courts, we could essentially end up with appointments of administrative law judges for small claims and misdemeanors, and I think it could sort itself out. Basically that way, if you had a “small claim” you have a venue, and the JDCs are hearing serious personal injury and felonies.
I’m all about injured people getting a fair shake, and I in no way support caps on damages of any kind. That’s completely unworkable. But I think civil defendants deserve a fair shake too. Delays in assignment of jury trials isn’t helpful to either party. There’s a solution beyond denying that judges are not the fair referees they are supposed to be.
Seems a fair compromise.
I’d be fine with adding judges too in jurisdictions where there are backlogged dockets.
Further, if we had uniform jurisdictional limits on city courts, we could essentially end up with appointments of administrative law judges for small claims and misdemeanors, and I think it could sort itself out. Basically that way, if you had a “small claim” you have a venue, and the JDCs are hearing serious personal injury and felonies.
I’m all about injured people getting a fair shake, and I in no way support caps on damages of any kind. That’s completely unworkable. But I think civil defendants deserve a fair shake too. Delays in assignment of jury trials isn’t helpful to either party. There’s a solution beyond denying that judges are not the fair referees they are supposed to be.
1
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:47 pm to Skin
Seat Belt Gag - I’d be ok with that disclosure to a jury. I always thought that was unfair. But the burden on the defense should be higher than a preponderance of the evidence. If not, every defense attorney would allege it without proof to muddy the water.
Medical Bill Secrecy - I do not support collateral source removal. Insurance companies should not get the benefit that I pay high health insurance premiums and penalize my recovery and someone who can’t afford health insurance gets the maximum.
Medical Bill Secrecy - I do not support collateral source removal. Insurance companies should not get the benefit that I pay high health insurance premiums and penalize my recovery and someone who can’t afford health insurance gets the maximum.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:52 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
why do you want to stop trial lawyers? Because you don’t like seeing the advertisements?
Imagine for a second, you are the Parish Economic Development head and you are courting a business owner to move his business into your parish. Then imagine finally getting the guy to consider your area. Then imagine picking him up at the airport and driving him to your town past +20 lawsuit attorney billboards. Then imagine being told no thanks and driving the guy back to airport.
I dont have to imagine it because a friend IS the Parish Economic Development head and has lived this scenario multiple times.
At least the company guy gets to read the Gordon McKernan bible quote.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:57 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Well then why are you opposed to eliminating elected judges in lieu of reducing the threshold?
I’d be ok with that.
Also, I’d be ok with a penalty for a frivolous claim. Maybe payment of all attorneys and costs associated with a claim that is deemed frivolous by a judge or a jury.
However, it should work both ways. If a settlement demand is made (not an offer of judgment) and rejected by the insurance company, the insurance company could be forced to pay double damages if the award is equal to or greater than the last demand. That could keep frivolous claims and unreasonable insurance companies out of the court system.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:03 pm to Wednesday
This. While always conservative and still conservative, it was quite a learning experience when my younger sister in her 20s was air med to a hospital with her leg bones sticking out her skin after a car accident that wasn’t her fault. They thought they were going to have to amputate, but after several surgeries and blood transfusions, she was able to keep her leg. The bill for the air med alone was crazy high. I remember my parents seeing attorneys in a whole new light after they depended on one to get those medical bills paid.
But i do agree the system is abused. If changes are made in the future, we have to make sure the good don’t suffer for the bad.
But i do agree the system is abused. If changes are made in the future, we have to make sure the good don’t suffer for the bad.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:04 pm to Napoleon
quote:
We should go no fault insurance like Texas, that at least would help.
Texas is not a no-fault state.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:06 pm to oilattorney4lsu
For the 10th time, lowering the threshold makes sense only if we stop electing judges.
The election of judges results in a court system overall that favors certain types of litigants and lawyers over others. I’m consistently amazed by my friends who have no idea the kind of havoc judges (who usually run unopposed once elected bc who wants to piss off the judge?).
Lowering the threshold would provide a check on the power of elected judges by the people who are in charge of electing them.
The election of judges results in a court system overall that favors certain types of litigants and lawyers over others. I’m consistently amazed by my friends who have no idea the kind of havoc judges (who usually run unopposed once elected bc who wants to piss off the judge?).
Lowering the threshold would provide a check on the power of elected judges by the people who are in charge of electing them.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:06 pm to landmanner
quote:
Imagine for a second, you are the Parish Economic Development head and you are courting a business owner to move his business into your parish. Then imagine finally getting the guy to consider your area. Then imagine picking him up at the airport and driving him to your town past +20 lawsuit attorney billboards. Then imagine being told no thanks and driving the guy back to airport.
No offense but that’s a bullshite reason and propaganda by the insurance companies.
Businesses don’t have to really worry about tort claims unless it’s gross negligence. Their jurisdiction is in the workers compensation court. A system devised by businesses to limit an injured worker’s amount of recovery in exchange for a lack of ability to sue them for negligence.
By the way, workers compensation was adopted with the same bullshite reason you spewed. To attract more businesses to Louisiana. In turn, businesses would voluntarily pay benefits and 66% of your weekly wage for valid claims without the need for the courts involvement.
It was all a lie. It didn’t create more business. And companies refused to pay the reduced wages and benefits easily. Creating a dramatic amount of 1008 claims in workers compensation court.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:09 pm to landmanner
quote:
Imagine for a second, you are the Parish Economic Development head and you are courting a business owner to move his business into your parish. Then imagine finally getting the guy to consider your area. Then imagine picking him up at the airport and driving him to your town past +20 lawsuit attorney billboards. Then imagine being told no thanks and driving the guy back to airport.
I dont have to imagine it because a friend IS the Parish Economic Development head and has lived this scenario multiple times.
I'm sorry, I simply do not believe that story happened. Nobody flies somewhere to look into a multi-million dollar deal, and then turns around and goes back to the airport because they saw some seedy billboards after they landed, without a second of further research or thinking. That is a stupid story and nobody with a brain should believe it. Think about it. A guy with responsibility for multimillion dollar transactions just makes a snap decision based on seeing billboards? It makes no sense.
Everywhere I go in this country I see billboards, some for lawyers, and for some reason in south Texas I saw some OB-GYN with a bunch of pretty gross billboards.
If your story says anything it's that there are too many billboards. Well, good luck limiting those in this state. The folks at Lamar will be all over that as soon as a bill is introduced to do that.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:11 pm to Wednesday
quote:
For the 10th time, lowering the threshold makes sense only if we stop electing judges.
The 10th time? Really? You must really suck as a lawyer or an insurance adjuster because you can’t formulate a clear idea. And you are definitely one of those two.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:13 pm to oilattorney4lsu
Agreed.
There are just as many pain in the arse, unreasonable insurance companies and unreasonable insurance defense attys as egomaniacal plaintiffs lawyers. (I’m not naming names bc that’s just not professional but I’m sure we’re both turning them over in our heads right now).
frick Frivolous Claims - and Frivolous Defenses. They undermine what we do, and are both probably effective at.
See. That wasn’t so hard. We reached a settlement. Let there be peace on earth. We should be benevolent dictators and all would be ok.
There are just as many pain in the arse, unreasonable insurance companies and unreasonable insurance defense attys as egomaniacal plaintiffs lawyers. (I’m not naming names bc that’s just not professional but I’m sure we’re both turning them over in our heads right now).
frick Frivolous Claims - and Frivolous Defenses. They undermine what we do, and are both probably effective at.
See. That wasn’t so hard. We reached a settlement. Let there be peace on earth. We should be benevolent dictators and all would be ok.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:15 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
You must really suck as a lawyer or an insurance adjuster
Just when I was complementing you
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:19 pm to Wednesday
Haha. I overreacted.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 1:48 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
Yes. I am. But I find it interesting that the common man would vote against their own interests. Tort reform ONLY benefits insurance companies and corporations.
Tort reform benefits the common man.
This post was edited on 11/17/19 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 11/17/19 at 2:01 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:Leeches. The more they successfully bullshite, the more they make.
There was a fricking billboard for lawyer services every 1/4 mile and a lawyer commercial on TV during every break.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 2:02 pm to Wednesday
quote:
For the 10th time, lowering the threshold makes sense only if we stop electing judges.
And what exactly is your solution to naming District Court Judges throughout this entire state?
Have our trial attorney governor appoint them?
My dad is a life long prosecutor so I patiently await this answer.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 2:13 pm to Parmen
This was your initial response:
Melt
quote:
Spoken like a true trial lawyer. More interested in contingency based payouts
Melt
Posted on 11/17/19 at 2:35 pm to Skin
quote:
And what exactly is your solution to naming District Court Judges throughout this entire state?
Would like to see them selected by a group of elected officials and existing legal governing bodies already established by law. Off the top of my head - the LSBA, the AG, the Secretary of State, the Insurance Commisioner, State Treasurer, Civil Law Institute, would be a good place to start; with appts subject to approval thru the legislative process.
The Gov has too much power already. We don’t need to put him in charge of both branches of gvt. He already runs 2.
Right now, most judges run unopposed until retirement. The qualification is basically “law degree.” Not fair and impartial legal scholar.
This post was edited on 11/17/19 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 11/17/19 at 2:37 pm to Fun Bunch
True story
Posted on 11/17/19 at 3:28 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
Serious question - why do you want to stop trial lawyers? Because you don’t like seeing the advertisements?
No not at all, as part owner of a business, we are the victims of many frivolous lawsuits. Our driving cameras have footage of attempted staged motor vehicle accidents where shitty vehicle swerve in front of us at 40mph and slam the brakes. In addition, when we are involved in a bumper rash accident at 5mph, we have 4 people pile out the vehicle with no complaint, and a week later we are served notice that they are suing us, and a year later they are totally disabled and can’t don anything the rest of their lives. All total bullshite lawsuits.
This post was edited on 11/17/19 at 3:37 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News