Well, it's done

[finnbow]

Zeke's the new dog on the block, just doing the requisite fire hydrant waterings. Once his turf is established, he'll throw you a bone.

[d-ray657]

Usually my answer to any simple legal question is "It depends."

For example, shouldn't a person who smokes three packs a day be held responsible for his own conduct rather than the tobacco companies.

Do you think the answer might be different if the tobacco companies added ingredients to make smokes more addictive? If they falsified data that would have otherwise identified health risks? If they put out a product that they Knew to be inherently dangerous? A great deal of balancing takes place when considering any legal policy.

Sometimes, it isn't a driver that is responsible for a car crash, but a car designer, or a repairman who negligently installed brakes that failed. Sometimes causation, or more precisely, proximate cause is bound up in policy decisions. For example, is the negligent installation of brakes closely enough related to the accident that responsibility for the accident should be borne by someone who wasn't directly involved? Usually, the conclusion would be that a brake installer knows or should know that an improperly installed set of brakes could cause an accident, so yes that brake installer can be held liable.

The term "tort reform" takes in so many suggestions for changing the law of damages, that it is hard to evaluate any suggestion that tort reform is needed. The courts have considerable control over damages, particularly punitive damages. Many of the huge damage awards that you hear about have subsequently been reduced by the court as excessive. The court can determine that the facts don't support an award of punitive damages in a case, and refuse to permit the jury to consider the issue. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional limit on punitive damages.

Finn, If we went to the English rule regarding attorneys fees, only the rich or the very poor (Or corporations of other such collectives) would have access to the courts. There are already rules in place that can make a plaintiff liable for the defendant's attorneys fees - such as when the plaintiff pursues a frivolous claim. When a statue calls for fee shifting in a particular type of action, the courts take several matters into consideration before issuing an award. So limits do exist to prevent over-exposure to frivolous claims.

You might disagree with me that the courts are an essential part of our democracy. They are certainly an essential part of our Constitutional system of government, in that they are part of the checks and balances that are supposed to occur in governing. If you flatly imposed the English rule on all cases, it would be akin to imposing a poll tax for people seeking access to the courts.

I'm not a big fan of contingency cases, and I've taken very few. But when a lawyer takes a contingency case, he goes into it knowing that he might end up not being paid. However, to require certainty of success before bringing a case would expose most people to a risk they could not afford. That is why I said that the very poor might still be able to afford litigation, because they would have nothing to lose. But a regular Joe, who might have a house and a car would stand to lose everything if he pursued an apparently meritorious case and lost.

My gosh. Am I parochial today, or what?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Maybe Zeke should ask me about Sarah? That would be fun.

Oh God no!!!

When you Palinphobes get in line with your hatchets, it's almost more than I can bear.

To tell the truth, I'll be glad once Zeke realizes he's entered the Twilight Zone...then I can smart ass him without worry of offending him.

I've already got a few comments lined up!!!

Chas

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Zeke's the new dog on the block, just doing the requisite fire hydrant waterings. Once his turf is established, he'll throw you a bone.

Let him go piss on someone else, I just got a golden shower from congress.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

Oh God no!!!

When you Palinphobes get in line with your hatchets, it's almost more than I can bear.

To tell the truth, I'll be glad once Zeke realizes he's entered the Twilight Zone...then I can smart ass him without worry of offending him.

I've already got a few comments lined up!!!

Chas

Yep, your gonna make a fine politician.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Usually my answer to any simple legal question is "It depends."

For example, shouldn't a person who smokes three packs a day be held responsible for his own conduct rather than the tobacco companies.

Do you think the answer might be different if the tobacco companies added ingredients to make smokes more addictive? If they falsified data that would have otherwise identified health risks? If they put out a product that they Knew to be inherently dangerous? A great deal of balancing takes place when considering any legal policy.

Sometimes, it isn't a driver that is responsible for a car crash, but a car designer, or a repairman who negligently installed brakes that failed. Sometimes causation, or more precisely, proximate cause is bound up in policy decisions. For example, is the negligent installation of brakes closely enough related to the accident that responsibility for the accident should be borne by someone who wasn't directly involved? Usually, the conclusion would be that a brake installer knows or should know that an improperly installed set of brakes could cause an accident, so yes that brake installer can be held liable.

The term "tort reform" takes in so many suggestions for changing the law of damages, that it is hard to evaluate any suggestion that tort reform is needed. The courts have considerable control over damages, particularly punitive damages. Many of the huge damage awards that you hear about have subsequently been reduced by the court as excessive. The court can determine that the facts don't support an award of punitive damages in a case, and refuse to permit the jury to consider the issue. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional limit on punitive damages.

Finn, If we went to the English rule regarding attorneys fees, only the rich or the very poor (Or corporations of other such collectives) would have access to the courts. There are already rules in place that can make a plaintiff liable for the defendant's attorneys fees - such as when the plaintiff pursues a frivolous claim. When a statue calls for fee shifting in a particular type of action, the courts take several matters into consideration before issuing an award. So limits do exist to prevent over-exposure to frivolous claims.

You might disagree with me that the courts are an essential part of our democracy. They are certainly an essential part of our Constitutional system of government, in that they are part of the checks and balances that are supposed to occur in governing. If you flatly imposed the English rule on all cases, it would be akin to imposing a poll tax for people seeking access to the courts.

I'm not a big fan of contingency cases, and I've taken very few. But when a lawyer takes a contingency case, he goes into it knowing that he might end up not being paid. However, to require certainty of success before bringing a case would expose most people to a risk they could not afford. That is why I said that the very poor might still be able to afford litigation, because they would have nothing to lose. But a regular Joe, who might have a house and a car would stand to lose everything if he pursued an apparently meritorious case and lost.

My gosh. Am I parochial today, or what?

Regards,

D-Ray

When you take a case, do you get paid by the word?

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

Oh God no!!!

When you Palinphobes get in line with your hatchets, it's almost more than I can bear.

To tell the truth, I'll be glad once Zeke realizes he's entered the Twilight Zone...then I can smart ass him without worry of offending him.

I've already got a few comments lined up!!!

Chas

Chas, you sound like a kid saying "Hey, let's take the new kid snipe hunting."

BTW, Zeke, welcome to Political chat. I hope that you will find that many here are quite capable of being agreeable in their disagreements. Some of us have posts that are way too long, which could help you appreciate some of the more cryptic posts. You will find many here have a great sense of humor, but you will also have to deal with us pun addicts too. Have fun.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Yep, your gonna make a fine politician.

I've already got a great campaign slogan.

"Who would you rather vote for, me, or some other sonofabitch?

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

When you take a case, do you get paid by the word?

Chas

I'm afraid diarrhea of the keyboard is a professional malady. I am sorry I got carried away. Need to remind myself that there is a delete key.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

I've already got a great campaign slogan.

"Who would you rather vote for, me, or some other sonofabitch?

Chas

you'll never make it as a pol, you are to honest, reasonable and sincere

hell, i'd vote for you! that's gotta scare you