From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 02 2002 - 12:22:05 MST
Zero Powers [mailto:zero_powers@hotmail.com] wrote:
Listen, I'm no plaintiff's lawyer, in fact quite the opposite. But the fact
of the matter is that the great majority of Americans favor a legal system
wherein individuals are allowed to seek redress for their injuries caused by
others in civil courts of law. Granted the plaintiff's bar benefits as much
as their clients many times. But, hey, nobody wants to work for free. And,
believe me, litigation is *work*.
### Sure - but with the juries willing to approve arbitrarily high punitive
damages, the balance tilts towards the attacker, no matter how much merit
there is to an accusation. Juries in some counties in Pennsylvania made a
series of very high awards, which resulted in the elimination of obstetrical
and neurosurgical care in those counties. How much should a human life cost?
-----
Your post leads me to believe that you don't have much real world experience
with the world of civil litigation. For instance what do you mean by the
"erosion of contract law?" I've been practicing law for well over a decade
now and have yet to see anything like "erosion" in the law of contracts.
Perhaps you could eloborate.
### I am not a lawyer and I have not been sued for malpractice (yet). I am
not lawyer-basher, either.
Contract law has been eroded to some extent by allowing social
considerations to modify post-hoc the interpretation of the contract. In the
legal theories (I'd need to ask my wife for the names of their proponents)
which lead to extending the application of tort law to what used to be
contracts, the "socially disadvantaged" or the "consumers" are to be
protected over and above (sometimes despite) the language of a contract, by
the threat of huge damages to be paid by the "rich corporations". In
practice, the legal costs are shifted to consumers, good people lose work
(as in the Corning breast implant debacle), innovation is stifled - too high
a cost for incremental changes in safety.
---- >A tort reform, and institution of a "loser pays the legal costs" rule, >would >come a long way to improving the situation. In California that *is* the rule. You lose, you pay the other side's costs. In several instances those costs also include attorney's fees. ### Very good. Let's hope this spreads to other states, *especially* the attorney's fees payment. Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:12 MST