Texas Leads the Way with ‘Loser Pays’ Reform; Blow to Trial Lobby
by Capitol ConfidentialTexas took yet another step this week that is certain to tighten its grip on the designation as the nation’s leading state for business. Governors in other states looking to improve their jobs situation should give serious consideration to mirroring the Lone Star State’s aggressive pro-jobs, pro-growth agenda.
On Tuesday the Texas Senate, under the leadership of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and despite an aggressive lobbying effort by the Trial Lobby, voted unanimously in favor of “loser pays” tort reform legislation. On Wednesday, the House, which had passed a similar bill and was awaiting the Senate’s version, concurred with the Senate bill and passed it through. Gov. Rick Perry has said he will enthusiastically sign the bill into law.
‘Loser pays’ will require plaintiff’s to foot the bill of the winning party’s legal costs if a judge finds the case to be groundless. According to the Wall Street Journal, “This Texas upgrade would build on reforms in 2003 and 2005 that have vastly improved the legal climate in what has not coincidentally become the country’s best state for job creation.”
Negotiations on the bill were highly contentious in recent weeks, mostly due to a well-funded lobbying campaign by the Trial Lobby, which, in Texas, is virtually synonymous with the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, there was a breakthrough over the weekend.
From the Austin Statesman:
By a unanimous vote, the Texas Senate has just given final approval to a once-controversial “loser pays” bill designed to make it easier to get meritless lawsuits tossed out of court.
Passage of the measure had been one of the goals of Gov. Rick Perry and GOP conservative groups. But as recently as a week ago, approval of the new law remained in doubt, as various groups continued to battle over its provisions.
Then, after several days of closed-door talks, a surprise deal was announced Saturday on House Bill 274 that allowed for today’s vote.
Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst deserve credit for shepherding the measure through negotiations. They serve as an example to Governors Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, each of who was elected on a pledge to institute similar reforms in their respective states. Americans for Job Security also stood up to the Trial Lobby’s largess with radio ads and a public information campaign.
“Thanks to the principled leadership of Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, a strong tort reform bill has emerged from the Senate,” said Stephen DeMaura, president of Americans for Job Security. “This important legislation would be a boost to Texas’s economy, freeing small business owners from the threat of frivolous lawsuits and securing the Lone Star State’s status as a magnet to job creators.”
Properly understood, Gov. Perry’s aggressive reforms should be classified along with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s and New Jersey Governor Christ Christie’s union and budget reforms. In Texas, Perry is confronting a powerful pillar of the Democrat establishment – the Trial Lobby spent nearly $14 million to defeat Perry last year – just as Walker and Christie are attempting to do with Big Labor. It’s why these men have been successful to date, hold the promise of future success and remain exceedingly popular within the Republican Party. It is also terrific policy designed to create a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic environment. The nation’s other governors should take note.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
136 Comments
I still don't understand why so many of my fellow conservatives are so keen on "loser pays" … sure it may stop some frivolous law suits, but it'll do more to stop legitimate ones.
Think of it this way, would you sue a company that wronged you knowing that you could risk a HUGE bill at the end if you don't win (because they have a team of 6 $500/hr lawyers on retainer)? There are no guarantees in a jury trial. Period.
Loser Pays is like gun control, it empowers those who are both strong and evil and ties the hands of those that are good but weak.
If you want to get rid of frivolous law suits, you simply need to find ways to disbar lawyers that file too many of them, not make it prohibitively risky to sue.
"…….despite an aggressive lobbying effort by the Trial Lobby……"
That is a key statement.
Many people are not aware of it, but the Trial Attorney Lobby, is probably the most powerful, best funded lobby in the country. Further, many of the most famous, most financially successful, high profile attorney's are in Texas.
It's not as simple as that. Just because you file a lawsuit, does not necessarily mean that you have the grounds to do so. This law will make lawyers evaluate the suit before it is brought. It will eliminate all of those people just filing to get a settlement because that's easier than a trial. It's only to eliminate groundless suits. It's not in every case that the loser will pay.
Shazam! Watch for a mass exodus from Texas to exceed the migration of business into Texas. The address' of numerous "Ambulance chasers" will be vacant from Texas.
The law doesn't cover every lawsuit, only those deemed "groundless". Losing a suit wouldn't cost the loser unless his suit was entirely without merit.
As seen by a judge.
LOL, true…and good riddance to filthy, stinking rubbish! There's no shyster like a Texas shyster.
A lot of these bandits fancy themselves entrepreneurs…as if a courtroom with laws written by lawyers to benefit lawyers in any way resembles a free market.
The bill, in it's final offering, was supported by "trial lawyers, defense attorneys and lawsuit-reform groups." I picked that quote up from the Austin Statesman. Moreover, after skimming the bill, it seems perfectly reasonable. It gets rid of frivolous lawsuits will still allowing lawsuits that have merit to go forward.
What's the differnce between a lawyer and a catfish?
One is a bottom feeding scum-sucker.
The other is a fish.
What should you do if you find a lawyer buried up to his neck in sand?
Get more sand.
Has there been any proof of this? In states that have adopted a loser pays scheme for medical lawsuits or for states that have adopted damages caps, have prices dropped? Does the cost of a visit to the doctor go down?
I think the problem is that we don't know how much things cost when it comes to medicine. So we can't let the free market operate. I'd like to see a world where medicine is like a supermarket, and I can compare prices before I even leave my house.
What's the difference between a rooster and a lawyer?
Every morning, the rooster clucks defiance. (Think about it…. say it out loud if you have to).
If only it were cooler in Texas, I'd move in a heartbeat. Business friendly and soon very few scumbag lawyers. That's a grand slam.
Ethical question: If you are sitting on the beach, reading the newspaper and eating a sandwich… and you look up and see a lawyer and an IRS agent and they are both drowning. And you know that you only have time to save one… what do you do … read the paper or finish your sandwich?
Your Headline is a lie. It is not loser pays. It is only loser pays if you are the plaintiff. True reform is loser pays, period. I have not filed a couple of lawsuits not because there was questions on whether the were valid or not, it was because I would not recoup attorney fees. The corporations I was dealing with knew that. So even if I won I would lose. As another poster pointed out, corporations have lawyers on contract, it is just the cost of doing business.
We have discussed this at work and the consensus is it is just the GOP sticking it to the working class again.
What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start..
Agreed we are far from the supermarket when it comes to health care. My point is that we never discuss
lawsuits when it comes to Medicine.
Why do Corporations have to have lawyers on contract?
Not only should it be loser pays. But, if the plaintiffs lose, 1/2 of the expenses should be borne by the losing Lawyer(s)!!
Whoa! Hold on there partner, this makes waaaay too much sense.
Just one more reason to love Texas.
I've seen hundreds of suits filed for the sole purpose of running up the defendant's costs in hopes that he'll settle out of court rather than continue to be required to provide document after document in discovery and the costs incurred by finding those documents, copying them and shipping them to the plaintiff's lawyer. I'd surmise that way less than half of those suits would ever have been filed if the case got to a jury and the plaintiff lost and THEN had to pay the costs of the defendant. Most trial lawyers KNOW that it'll cost THEM nothing under the current system. That will change dramatically if he AND his client may have to bear the costs formerly borne by the defendants if they happen to lose.
I see your point but did you know that most lawyers sue multiple targets with the hope that one of them sticks. A company might be guilty of harming someone but they sue everyone associated with the company with the hope that one of them sticks. THis will end that practice.
Yes. Maybe the insurance companies and others will grow a pair and, instead of automatically settling, will contest the matters in court.
Has anyone ever done a study on what impact that lawyers advertising for clients has had on the costs of healthcare/health insurance?
Trial lawyers nationwide should pay close attention to this. In Texas, at least, no longer will you be able to file frivolous nuisance suits, knowing full well the defendant will settle rather then endure a long trial with a possible more unhappy ending.
Texas leading the way…
Happy Trails…..
"As another poster pointed out, corporations have lawyers on contract, it is just the cost of doing business. "
Yes, it is the cost of doing business. Who pays this cost? Certainly not the business. It's passed on through increased prices to the consumer…sticking it to the working class again.
I can see a scenario in this where a suit is filed, discovery is completed, it goes to trial and the plaintiff makes their case. At that point the defendants move for a directed verdict from the court to dismiss the case. If the Judge feels plaintiff did not make the case, he can dismiss it. The Judge can also determine at that time if the case had any merit at all and was essentially frivolous. If he so determines, he may impose the sanction of loser pays.
This was going to be my exact point. To overcome this is of huge import.
" In states that have adopted a loser pays scheme for medical lawsuits or for states that have adopted damages caps, have prices dropped? Does the cost of a visit to the doctor go down? "
The beneficial effects won't be seen quickly. But when insurance companies know there are limits on malpractice payouts for unintentional doctor mistakes, the outrageous prices charged for malpractice insurance will naturally go way down..
Precisely.
Anything that hurts lawyers and brings something resembling fairness to the legal system is a good thing in my mind.
Lemme guess: You all pretend to work down at the Collective and the local Soviet pretends to pay you… right?
Begone, communist.
I regret to differ. This is not just about friviolous lawsuits. The Trial Lawyer collective is a blight on the US polity that should be expunged by any technique possible. In a Free Market and Free Society, informed consumers and citizen behave prudentially and intelligently by researching adequately the goods, services or products and to cede your adult responsibility to a collection of preternatural stupid and ignorant jurors and duplicitous Legal parasites is offensive to a free person.
More harm has been done by the Trail Lawyers of the Left than even the ACLU. They must be destroyed.
what do you call a plane full of lawyers crashing into the sea??
A good start
Leave town for the summer. Live on the beach or in the hill country. It can be managed.
The more reasonable question is, "has the rate of increase been impeded?" because, thanks in no small part to government meddling through mandated minimum coverages – I'm a 52-year-old man, and among the wonders of Uuhhhbama "care," my insurance company is required cover my mammograms and OB/GYN-related services with a zero deductible under a policy on which I'm the sole named insured – the price of coverage has been spiraling everywhere. Even given all this background static from Washington, health-insurance premiums in both Texas and Colorado (where punitive damages for medical malpractice, plus nebulous torts such as "pain and suffering," are limited to $250,000) are far lower than in New York state and Connecticut, where there are no limits on either.
Example: My monthly premium is $277 in Colorado for a "high-deductible" policy. (We used to call this "major-medical coverage.") I've read that a New York City man of similar age and health profile can expect to pay more than $600 per month. Not all of the difference is attributable to practitioners' higher medical tort-liability exposure, but New York's additional costs and mandates can't come close to explaining all of that $300-plus a month additional premium, either.
We moved here-South Plains area-from Northern Illinois in April.. Tomorrow is supposed to hit 100 and Saturday will be 103. Chicago doesn't get 100+ temps. Too hot.
If a lawyer stopped a man from beating a jackass, what virtue would he be displaying?
Brotherly love.
That's true, JB, besides, what about the lawyers who are really good and get a lot of business? A measure like Zund suggests opens some lawyers up to punishment just because they are good at what they do. ( I still can't believe I used good and lawyer in the same sentence! Oh well…)
So, basically this grants a lot of power to activist conservative judges to make those with clearly differing political views than themselve pay for having them.
This is absurd.
In Texas… they already have medical malpractice caps….. and even lower totals when involving a medical facility that is state funded (MD Anderson, UTMB, UT Southwestern, etc)
SCmed, who's to say a lawyer will make a valid judgement of the chances his client will win? The lawyers get paid whether they win their case or not and it's not much of a stretch to think a lawyer might overstate a client's chance of success just for the billable hours.
Apart from that, it's always a crap shoot in US courts these days. You may have a slam dunk claim and a judge or jury could rule against you 'cause they don't like the way you comb your hair. I exaggerate of course but, the strangest things can happen in court.
I contend very few cases will be affected by this law. Most of the "sue to get a settlement 'cause it would cost less to settle than to pay to defend" crowd will just move to another jurisdiction.
And you know a lot about absurdity….
I still think the best thing is to make lawyers like policemen, on the public payroll. If you've been wronged, just like you'd call a cop when you've been robbed, you call or go to the lawyers station and file a complaint. It gets reviewed and investigated if it's found to have merit, a decision is reached, harm is restituted, life moves on. If everyone knew they could just get investigated they'd not do things wrong. It's the prohibitiveness of having to sue someone that allows a certain amount of abuse to happen. As it stands now, with private practice lawyers, all the lawmakers are lawyers, and all the laws bend way in their favor. You should outlaw lawyers from holding any office where they make law or judge on laws.
As I read it, it's not every losing plaintiff- just those whose suits are found to be groundless. I doubt seriously any "jury trial" would ever be an issue, because this sort of suit is usually disposed of by pretrial motion to dismiss or summary judgment.
I fear however that judges will be as reluctant to make a finding of 'frivolity' here as they are to impose Rule 11 sanctions.
Yes, you're right: your post is absurd.
As opposed to our current activist liberal judges 'sticking it to the man' by awarding millions to some dimwit because the security at her apartment complex was lax, while the lease agreement states the property does not provide security?
The PEOPLE will know, and if you think that lawyer is getting anything out of that client that just LOST a frivolous suit – and he has to pay the OTHER lawyers too??
And you can't move a Texas citizen against a Texas Company (or another citizen) to NY, or Cali – it ain't going to happen.
As they already have in Texas. It's in the links already.
Since Conservative judges by definition are to adhere to the Constitutional First Principles of their states or at the federal level, they cannot be activist in the sense you imply, because they adjudicate the actual law without changing it. You need a different term when referring to Conservative judges.
Are you kidding? Police officers are a mixed bag. The lawyers will be much worse. We all know how generally underserved the public is when they choose a public defender.
Dave, the lawsuits I've been involved in, whether as a plaintiff or defendant, have always required that I pay a retainer and monthly invoices as the case proceeds. Even if I lose, I still have to pay the final bill of the lawyer or they will sue for what's owed them. Payment of their bill has no bearing on the outcome of the case. Have you never heard the expression, the lawyers never lose, they always get paid?
Of course, I wasn't refering to cases that have to be tried in Texas but, for example, a Texan can sue a Texas based company if it has a sales office in Rhode Island, in Rhode Island.
There must be a lawyer on this thread that doesn't care for my attitude 'cause I've never been dinged so much without Helen or Crockwise close by.
That's a good example, Phil but, I'll give you another. I'm an inventor. I'm pretty good at it and make respectable money. I get sued for infringement all the time, usually by patent attorneys that buy a competing patent to mine or a former patent office drone who knows what to look for. They say they will settle (after some back and forth and threats) for say, $50K. To me, this is a bargain because it's going to cost me $50K just to get a lawyer in the jurisdiction up to speed and file the motions. In every case I could prove the action was frivolous but it would cost me more to prove it. This law is good for Texans vs Texas companies (or vice versa) to a point but, I'm still stuck 'cause my stuff sells worldwide. Scammers and their lawyers, if they are not lawyers themselves, will always find a way to pull off their crap.
Can't find fault with any of that, Respub. America has become too litigious because there are too many lawyers with time on their hands and courts willing to award huge damages for idiotic reasons. Hence the barrage of lawyer ads on day time TV promising, " you can be entitled to a cash settlement if you call right now!"
Because of the current system. If it changed, it would be different. Besides, if we didn't do it because of corruption, then we'd never have cops, either. And, do you think it's not corrupt now? Part of the reason we have what we have is because of corruption. Make it so that you can't add money to increase your chances of getting a favorable ruling. Every case gets reviewed by a panel, those with merit proceed, those without get canned, change out panel members constantly. Give it two reviews, just to check each panel's recommendations. Lots of ways for it to be better, but none of them will be picked if a lawyer gets to make the decision. Coke's law.
Where does the ounce of truth come from?
Also, what do you call fifty lawyers going over the cliff in a broken down bus? A waste of a perfectly good bus.
Only if she comes to Texas….but if she comes here, I'm leaving for the day, anyway….maybe I'll go hang around a paper mill….or a slaughterhouse…something with a better aroma….
"…in Texas."
And looking for new homes, I'm thinking. Speaking of which, we may have a few extra vacancies soon, if any of you snowbirds wants to move…..I'mjustsayin.
I seem to have a different perspective here in GA. The law suits I've been involved with, the lawyer didn't get paid unless he/she wins AND collects a settlement. This also gives the lawyers a better incentive to do their best in my opinion. I still have to pay for expenses, but I get the receipt for then so I know that the lawyers are not padding the bill.
It is buyer be ware, just as anything else.
I hear that states that opt out of the family planning part of the law will be heavily fined. And CO has been invaded by Californians who've turned the state from red to blue. The dems used to be massed in Denver while the rest of the state was repub but now the refugees from CA (and NY) have settled and meddled statewide. They've opted to trash the CO lifestyle instead of joining and enjoying it. It amazes me that people flee insane government practices in one state only to institute the same nanny state policies where they relocate.
I wonder if Sarah Palin would still be governor of Alaska if this had been in effect in her state?
Quite similar to O.T. Legal Systems. However, the general advice back then, was to settle your differences between yourselves, 1st of all.
In addition, The Administrations and the Clergy(s) all believed in the same God and tried to live acdg to His Laws, lst of all.
One of the problems with too many lawyers is too many laws. Fewer laws, more weight on making the judgement of whether or not you were trying to follow the law or not, with the ability to replace those judges in the hands of the people. Great concept, but putting it into effect is hard, and whether or not it's right or will work is questionable. Everything works when you assume the better nature of man, unfortunately, it's never been proven to exist.—
Well I don't know if prices have dropped; but as the daughter of a lawyer who reviews medical lawsuit claims appeals for the VA I know that my dad sees fewer frivolous cases from states where there are damages caps. He actually commented on that not 2 weeks ago. So my guess would be that if the government has few claims made in those states that private and public hospitals would see the same trend. I also know that medical malpractice insurance is less in states with damages caps…which if nothing else lowers the overhead.
<DIV>Too many laws is a fact. The Original idea of morality isn't taught in our schools, like when I was grade school in the 50's. We had the 10 commandments posted on our walls.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Ancient Israel, at lst, had the 10 commandments…Well, the citizens didn't have the Spirit available to them, at the time…So, they had more strife between the citizens, which required making more laws…Until their entire behaviors became more marginalized by laws…</DIV> <DIV>—
Really, Eyes? What kind of case is that? Like a car accident where you are in the right or something? Against an insurance company? Yeah, I can see a lawyer taking that on a contingency. Now that I think of it, that's where "ambulance chasers" come into the picture but, I was talking more about civil cases where no insurance companies are involved and the outcome might not be so cut and dried.
….FOX NEWS ALERT……..FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….
They may declare Texas trial lawyers to be put on the endangered species list. Wait….
….FOX NEWS ALERT……..FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….
They have DENIED declaring Texas trial lawyers endangered species status. Wait….
….FOX NEWS ALERT……..FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….
Texas state authorities have confiscated all Texas trial lawyers' Mercedes. Wait…
….FOX NEWS ALERT……..FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….FOX NEWS ALERT….
Our helicopter has spotted a hoard of them runnning for the California border with napsacks and gallon jugs of water. Looks like these illegal aliens are going to increase California's unemployment rate. So sad. No jobs, no homes and no morals.
The key here is; The Judge must rule the lawsuit "groundless" in order for the loser to pay. If the Judge finds there is merit in the case, then the loser doesn't cover the winners bill. It's not that big of a deal, it just means more care must be taken in order for the lawsuit to be filed. It's common sense really.
re: "Your Headline is a lie. It is not loser pays. It is only loser pays if you are the plaintiff. True reform is loser pays, period."
You are incorrect. Under the current system, the DEFENDANT pays if he loses. What don't you understand, (-:|3 ?
Under the new law, the plaintiff may pay if he loses.
Understand it now?
Please read the article again. The loser pays IF the judge deems the lawsuit groundless. This will only discourage sleazy lawyers from trying to scam monies out of businesses.
What is absurd is your lack of a grip on reality. Frivolous lawsuits causes prices to rise. The only winners are the trial lawyers (the biggest contributor to the Democrat party).
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorial-frivolo...
And chances are – those aren't going to be the type that are "ruled" as frivolous.
This will stop the idiot who took a broken rickety ladder with missing braces, set it up on a slanted, wet driveway, then climbed up it and on top of all that stuff, leaned over to the side and fell on his a$$.
It's not the ladder companies fault (for it being olde and broken).
It's not the cement pour'ers fault that put in the slated driveway.
It's not the water companies fault for the wetness.
It's the idiots fault for being stupid. There WAS a time in this country when you couldn't get any money for YOU being stupid.
Also, there's a good chance that once a lawyer loses a few frivolous ones, he will get a bad rep…yeah I know, how can a lawyer get a bad'ER rep???
You actually are part of the problem then. You are enabling lawyers to be ABLE to keep doing it.
And yes, it is sad at what lawyers charge. There shouldn't even BE any laws that are written that a high school grad can't understand the language.
(And also part of the problem is also the absolute BROKEN patent and copyright system we have in place, where people can patent and copyright things without actually doing any work. It used to be you actually had to have something FIRST before you could patent and/or copyright it. You couldn't do it to just an "idea" – you had to actually MAKE that idea, then it was yours for 10+ years to profit off of.)
Yes, I agree, I am part of the problem, Dave, but, what can a body do?. I am open to all suggestions short of actually killing these parasites (which would only get me sued again). My situation with my patents is a very common one in the US so, if anyone has a solution to the scams, many small, honest inventors are all ears!
And you are damned right about patent and copyright systems.
Finish the sandwich. It would take longer and I'd get more out of it.
Again, you are right, Dave. There is no more personal responsibility left in America! I've seen the ads on TV, "Had a slip and fall! Know your rights! We can get you a cash settlement!". Screw that! If you slip and fall, it's your own dumbass fault for having two left feet in the vast majority of cases.
The civil cases I'm taliking about are a bit more complicated than this and cannot immediately ruled as frivolous. Sometimes it gets to the discovery stage (large bucks involved to get to that point) before anyone can see it's a scam on the plaintiff's part.
Well then I guess you better think long and hard about what cases you are bringing up.
If it's a crap lawsuit and you KNOW it's a crap lawsuit, then you should pay for wasting everyone's time, and trying to get a payday at someone else's expense.
If you have a legitimate case, then you have nothing to worry about.
Ya that's all we need… Publically funded unionized lawyers
You saw what happened in Wisconsin and NJ with Teachers Union, can you imagine battling a "Lawyers union"?
I prefer we just keep strict interpretation of the law, and put the ambulance chasers out of business
I would rather see judges just throw the "groundless" ones out BEFORE they go to trial then.
My concern is that it will create a "chilling effect" on legitimate claims because of the fear that a capricious judge will decide that simply because you lost your case was clearly "groundless".
You want to sue GE and sit before some Obama appointed judge? Doesn't matter what the merits of your case are there's still a chance you will be completely ruined if you lose (and again, a jury trial is no guarantee regardless how strong you think your case is).
I still don't see why we can't have the judge that's going to see the case review it first and then determine that its groundless before we waste the time and money of a trial.
Its not just the lawyers that are sleazy … there are plenty of sleazy judges that will rule your case is frivolous just because they disagree with your politics.
MAYBE if you make the loosing LAWYER cover the other sides cost it might stop the sleazy ones.
I would like some facts to back up that statement. And if the plaintiff disagrees then there is always the appellate court.
The police are unionized. Unions should be outlawed anyway, but that's a seperate issue. Again, nothing you describe or fear could be worse than what we have now.—
That is where you are inherently wrong.
Where does the constitution mention abortion?
I'll wait.
LOL. It is just too easy to intellectually run circles around some of you.
No.
Negligent acts cause prices to rise. The lawsuits assign blame, lead to justice and assign a remedy to the situation.
God. You are dense.
Negligence like McDonalds serving hot coffee? What a moron. Next time do a little research instead of showing the world your ignorance.
Did you read the article I posted? Please show where it is wrong.
if you are going to serve hot coffee, you have a responsibility to ensure the vessel you provide is capable of containing the fluid and the temperature.
seriously, since when has it been legally acceptable to provide hazardous or unsafe products to the public?
I guarentee that if you had a house built, and the walls rotted out….and it turned out the contracted used subpar/unsat dry wall….you would sue. But, according to your logic here, your lawsuit would be frivolous.
Your hypocrisy makes your opinion worthless. It exposes your opinion as being purely ideologically based. Wake up and think for yourself.
You just made my point.
McDonalds did not change the cup (or vessel capable of containing the fluid as self-improtant partisans like to say) they just added a warning that the cup contained HOT COFFEE. In fact the lawsuit had nothing to do with "the vessel capable of containing fluid". The lawsuit said that the COFFEE was defective. In the future if you do not want to look like a total ignoramus, then first get at least a basic handle on the FACTS!!!
No one is saying that one cannot sue a company for producing hazardous or unsafe products. ITS ABOUT FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%...
How is suing for use of sub-par materials a frivolous lawsuit? Your lack of critical thinking skills is laughable, but keep on thinking you are some kind of intellectual.
You are able to peer into my mind and can say with certainty how I would act in a given situation, then call me a hypocrit and say my opinion is worthless. I'll tell you what is worthless…YOU!
Again, what was your point?
son, that's why God invented the air conditioner.
And this is just another reason (of millions) why we put up with floods, tornados, hurricanes, heat, mosquitos the size of your face, feral hogs, coyotes, and Austin. Texas is truly like another country, one that actually works. I wouldn't live anywhere else.
That's a dead giveaway of your real alignment.
You lose.
Can't argue sensibly against the measure, so you change the subject. Typical left-liberal statist.
You lose.
"……. and Austin." LOL!
I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. I can only remember 1 summer where we *didn't* have at least 5 days over 100. Has all this global warming has cooled it off for you in the past 12 years?
Next, you mention, regarding GE, etc., that it "doesn't matter what the merits of your case are." No. That's the point. If a judge determines that there is legal merit to your case, it can go forward without fear of "loser pays" retribution. If your case has merit, there is no problem. If you are a moonbat libutard who wants to sue GE because it didn't provide a transgendered restroom with hypoallergenic air freshener (and the emotional stress drove you to a life of promiscuity and drug abuse, so now you need money for emotional pain and suffering, your sex change, and the buick you crashed into a school bus), then you will probably have to pay for bringing your frivolous lawsuit to trial.
Finally, you lament that we don't simply allow the judge to review a case and advise that it be thrown out before it ever comes to trial. But, we *do* make provision for this (say, in a pre-trial hearing).
But, this being America, we obviously don't give judges the power to decide who does or doesn't get a trial. You can bring a suit against somebody, if you really want to, and you can force the judge to throw it out there. The important fact you keep missing, however, is that legal expenses are incurred before a case even gets to trial; you don't magically teleport into a courtroom with a prepared brief and all the proper papers filed against your opponent. So, unless an institution has a good army of pro-bono lawyers (like many churches can find to defend them against lawsuits), liberal activists know they can wage a war of attrition on businesses and Conservative establishments simply by bringing manifold suits against them. This legislation doesn't actually recoup legal expenses for an innocent defendant unless the suit DOES go to trial; he would still be out the pre-trial legal expenses. But if it DOES go to trial, he can be recompensed for everything, by the frivolous plaintiff. So, with this legislation in force, we would actually WANT libutarded lawsuits to go to trial.
Do you see?
Again, Zundfolge, the whole pre-trial hearing system can provide for a pre-trial resolution of frivolous (and non-frivolous) suits.
But, tell me: do you think it is American, to have judges or judicial panels determine which cases "deserve" a trial, or not? Do you think activist judges might relish the opportunity to screen which cases ever get a hearing in the first place?
No. The USA will let you bring suit against somebody. If you're a narcissitic idiot who shouldn't have brought suit, that can come out in the trial… but we're not going to give judges the right to determine who deserves a trial, a priori.
Right… because all the judicial activism has been coming from *conservative* judges! This is the absurdity – everyody knows that whenever common sense, legal precedent, the unique and brilliant tradition of Anglo-Saxon law and jurisprudence and/or constitutional principles are being circumvented, a liberal activist is behind it… like in Sotomayor's *on-camera* admission that she and other judges do, essentially, legislate from the bench as a way to further unpopular (but "just") political agenda.
These decisions will be highly subject to scrutiny. If judges are throwing out meritorious cases simply from political posturing, there will be ways to address this – in the actual courts, and in the court of public opinion.
Or Happy Trials, as the case may be.
You answered as I intended. The Liberal Activist (redundant due to their philosophy) Judges found a nonexistent right. I guess the nitwit missed that bit. Drugs will screw up your mind and slow your emotional development. I think the guy suffers on both counts.
You are wasting your breath. This Parasite's ignorance is permanent.
You must be logged in to post a comment.