| Author | Message | ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 91 Registered: 10-2002 |
Dave: I'm glad you feel that way, I suspected you might. I hope I did not imply that you had backed out of jury duty. How would I know? My point is that if more professionals would take their role more seriously the jury pools would be better, and not as much like the description you made in your post, which was somewhat accurate. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1669 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art....where do I begin? You can try to justify it all you want, but the fact remains: WE ALL PAY FOR THIS INSANITY--as shareholders, as consumers, as employees, and as taxpayers (your argument that the taxes on this crap are a "benefit" is feeble at best). And the fact is that most of the money goes to attorneys. Crusing, I have never backed out of jury duty. Nor would I. It, like voting, is an obligation & responsibility of citizenship in this great country. Bill Hart, great post. Jackpot mentality, indeed. | ||
| Erich Walz (Deleteall)
Member Username: Deleteall Post Number: 309 Registered: 12-2001 |
With regards to punitive damages, the US Supreme court recently overturned a punitive damage award because the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages was 145-1. The court alluded that the outer limits of an acceptable ratio might be 10-1. In coming to its decision, the Court held that the Due Process Clause prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a defendant. The Court cited three �guideposts� it would use in reviewing an award of punitive damages to determine whether they violate the Due Process Clause. Those guideposts include: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant�s misconduct, (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award, and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. The case is State Farm v Campbell | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member Username: Whart Post Number: 1124 Registered: 12-2001 |
We live in a "JACKPOT" society. Just as everyone in LA, including the doorman and limo driver have a script or are waiting for the call-back for the pilot, we are conditioned to believe that you have got to be rich to be successful in the US and if you can't get rich by working (not easy), inheritance (even harder), marriage (has drawbacks) or crime (ditto), there is always the litigation "score." As a lawyer, i will not defend the profession here. I will say that lawyers have been infected with this disease as well. As a profession, we have gotten much richer, and the profession is poorer; much more time and attention is spent on practice development (chasing clients and money) than on training young lawyers or thinking about the development of the law itself. These are a "luxury" that is simply not cost-effective. I have had the good fortune, in my career, to work on very interesting matters, and occasionally doing some good. I have met some fascinating people (rogues are often more interesting than honest people) as well as some truly inspiring and talented individuals. I have also been well paid for what i do, so i have been truly blessed. But the pressures of the law as business have, in some ways, become increasingly distasteful to me. At the same time, most of the lawyers i meet, i believe, try in their own way to do good, help their clients and sometimes, even to give back to the profession and society at large through charitable works, including pro bono activities, teaching, etc. I am always fascinated by what drives young people to go into the profession. Very few articulate some great good that they are striving for, beyond their own, personal achievement. In fact, most don't even have a particular area of the law that they want to focus on, when they begin their careers, other than the usual choice between "litigation" and "corporate." Our political system was built by lawyers, to be run by lawyers. It is based on an adversarial approach that is awkward, costly, and time-consuming. There are excesses and idiocies in every field; but, human nature being what it is, and society's material rewards only being made available to the wealthy, its easy to see why this happens. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1763 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: From reading your posts, it is clear that you don't understand the nature and reasoning for punitive damages. Let me take a second, and give you my perspective: 1. Your comment that nobody gains from them but lawyers. Untrue. Facts: Government gets double taxation on these awards, because of the alternative minimum tax. Additionally, these types of damages are not awarded because someone was careless, no, they are awarded because someone deelibertly, or recklessly hurt someone else. In California, you cannot get these types of damages without a policy maker of the company having either done it or condoned it, and you have to proof they did it by clear and convincing evidence, a far higher standard than the usual by a preponderance. The reason these awards are substantial is that they are generally connected to the net worth of the wrong doer. It would not make sense to impose a damage award of say 100,000 upon a company with a net worth of say 10Billion. These are designed to cause the wrong doing to stop doing wrong, they have to hurt. As a result of these types of damages, and the're damage to the wrong doer, most companies behave themselves. How many Ford do you now see, that when impacted in the rear, the gas tank shoots two streams of fuel at the front passengers? It took a heavy hit against them to make them clean up their act, because they'd run the numbers, cheaper not to make it right, but they didn't take into account the punitive damage consequences. The US Supreme Court is sticking its nose into these awards, and I suspect they'll screw it up. Not one of those august people has ever practiced law, they've been feeding at the public trough their entire lives, from what I understand, and have never been in the trenches. There's more, but I'll let the other lawyers on this site put their two cents in. Art | ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 90 Registered: 10-2002 |
Dave: If your comments are limited to punitive damages, your comments resonate with me to a degree. However, ambulance chasers (of which I suppose I'm one because I assist people who are injured) can only survive if insurance companies do NOT live up to the bargain we all pay for with our premiums. In my line of business, punitive damages very seldom arise. However, in the proper case they are a valuable tool to shape a person or corps behavior (that is the main reason behind tort law to begin with). I hope your not one of those guys who ask to be excused from jury duty because your too busy with work. I would like to see more educated profesionals not ask to be excused because they are too busy. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1668 Registered: 1-2002 |
Mark, humans make mistakes. Sometimes, they are also incompetent. But I am waiting to see an 8 figure award against a lawyer for poorly representing someone who ended up on death row. Turnabout's a b!tch, eh? | ||
| Mark (Markg)
Member Username: Markg Post Number: 485 Registered: 2-2001 |
Everyone wants to do something about medical malpractice awards. How come no-one wants to do anything about medical malpractice? No malpractice - no awards | ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 89 Registered: 10-2002 |
I actually live north of Seattle and I have my own firm. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1666 Registered: 1-2002 |
Crusing, I'm not going to argue with you about this. We have different opinions. But the key word in all you typed was "fair". I challenge anyone to justify 8,9, and 10 figure awards as "fair". They are purely lawyer-enrichment schemes. And your benign avoidance of the issues, and the example I posted in my previous post, prove me right. As a lawyer, you will know that sometimes it is not what you say or what issues you respond to, but what you don't say & what you avoid, that are key... I do not begrudge you your ability to make a living. But "insurance companies screwing people" are not the progenitor of millions of ambulance chasers trying to get rich; the cadre of perpetually-unemployed folks with an extreme entitlement mentality who are the only ones seemingly on juries are. The problem is us, Crusing. You guys are merely the sharks smelling all the chum in the water. I mean no offense with the sharks comment, unlike others who do, but it is just so apt.  | ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 88 Registered: 10-2002 |
One point on punitive damages... They are there to stop the people with deep pockets from just paying a couple hundred thousand and not chaning their behavior. They are meant to sting the corps where it hurts. It usually takes a 8 figure hit to make a corp wake up. In Wash. there are generally no punitive damages, and I see your point on the lawyers making the money but they took they risk. And something else to remember it is a jury awarding the money, not the lawyers. | ||
| Erich Walz (Deleteall)
Member Username: Deleteall Post Number: 308 Registered: 12-2001 |
Crusing: You're is Seattle, right? Which firm are you with? | ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 87 Registered: 10-2002 |
Dave I usually agree with most of what you say and seldom with Art (politically speaking). But Art is right on the money on this one. I have only one response, which is really a question to you. Why do you think that Plaintiff's Personal Injury lawyers can even make a living? We did not cause the problem. I exist because of a niche created by insurance companies screwing people! If they paid what was fair for someone's injuries, then I would not have a job, because my clients could get the fair amount without my help. This is preciesly the reason lawyers are seldom brought in on property damage claims. Insurance companies generally pay what is fair on property damage. If insurance companies wanted to put me out of business it would be easy. But they don't, they would rather pay what is fair only a few times (after lawsuits) and nail the unaware citizens by sending a check for $1000 and a release immediately folling an accident. Everyone hates plaintiff's lawyers until they are hurt. I have gotten more for my clients, even after my 1/3 in fees, than was ever offered by the insurance company before I came on board. So don't blame us, blame the insurance companies for screwing people. P.S. If you really want know how the insurance companies screw you after an accident you should find out about the computer program "Colossus." | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1664 Registered: 1-2002 |
Oh, come on, Art. These 8 and 9 figure punitive awards are what I am talking about. They help NO ONE except your profession. And we pay the price. And none of that makes anyone any safer. I have never opposed suing to recover actual damages...but these things are out of control, and many orders of magnitude greater than any damage caused. And it's only the lawyers who are getting rich. Case in point: the $$ billions that went to 3 texas lawyers as part of the anti-tobacco legislation. Pray, tell me how these a$$clowns have each earned the right to become BILLIONAIRES because others failed to curb their own smoking? And you know I'm right, Art. It is out of control, and it hurts EVERYONE except plaintiffs lawyers. And every month, they move on to the next set of deep pockets: gun makers, Oreo makers, McDonalds, auto makers, etc etc etc. | ||
| David McGee (Damcgee)
New member Username: Damcgee Post Number: 17 Registered: 2-2003 |
Arthur, do you care to voice an opinion about capping damages? Myself, I have no problem with compensatory damages. I think there should be no cap on them, because they are compensating you for wrongs against you. Punitive damages get a bad rap, and I think rightly so. Certainly the thinking behind them is good, but I do not believe they make society a better place. I guess what I am saying is, they do more harm than good. I *DO* recognize that they do good, but they are doing MORE harm, IMHO. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1761 Registered: 6-2001 |
Chris: I noticed that you mention Catherine Crier's new book. I haven't finished it, but I think that she has taken individual items and used it to attack the entire profession. I've listened to her on many occassions, and frankly, I think she's intellectually challenged. When I finish her book, I'll drop you a little note, with facts, statistical facts, not antidotal facts, which will disprove a substantial portion of her "claims". Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1760 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: If it weren't for Plaintiff's lawyers, you might be paying less for insurance, but every time you went into the hospital you'd run a higher risk of having some doc make a mistake, causing you injury, every time you drove in your car, you'd run a higher risk that you'd be hurt in the event of an accident, every time you did business with a large company, you'd run a higher risk that they delibertly screw you, you run a higher risk at literally everything that you did. We (Plaitniff's lawyers) are private cops. We make sure that people follow the law. Sure your insurance rates are up, but you're risks are down. I'd say that was a more than fair trade. Art | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 721 Registered: 4-2003 |
DAVE! We're actually agreeing on something! :-D Jack | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1659 Registered: 1-2002 |
Erich, you're right. Cruising, wanna know why insurance rates are so high in the US? 2 words: plaintiff lawyers. | ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 86 Registered: 10-2002 |
Erich: If there weren't plaintiff lawyers keeping insurance companies honest no person would be safe. | ||
| Erich Walz (Deleteall)
Member Username: Deleteall Post Number: 305 Registered: 12-2001 |
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0508families08.html | ||
| Erich Walz (Deleteall)
Member Username: Deleteall Post Number: 304 Registered: 12-2001 |
Yep, its real. Don't have a link, but they argue the government knows immigrants will be forced to take these dangerous routes because of the crackdown, then does nothing to make these routes safer-whatever. Maybe they should be suing the Mexican government for making it so easy to cross and for not providing enough water and supplies in the border crossing packages the mexican Government provides them. To clarify, it should read PLAINTIFF'S LAWYERS are out of control (some of us do defense work). | ||
| William Huber (Solipsist)
Member Username: Solipsist Post Number: 949 Registered: 9-2001 |
America, land of the lawsuit.  Those Jim Adler "the tough, smart lawyer" commericals are showing some folks how easy it is ot walk away with a quick cash settlement. It's gotta stop! | ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 83 Registered: 10-2002 |
People can sue for any reason. You should not get pissed when they sue. Get pissed when they win! There are ways to make lawyers pay for suing when the lawsuit is frivolous. I agree this suit is rediculous. But relax they have as good a shot at winning as do the suits for McDonald's supersized food and slave reparations. | ||
| Mark (Markg)
Member Username: Markg Post Number: 484 Registered: 2-2001 |
Yea and now I see a lawyer was going to sue Oreo cookie manufactor (since McDonalds suit went away). He then dropped case but generated a lot of negative publicity for Oreo while getting his own name plenty of national recognition. Oreo might have a case against the lawyer if it affected sales.... | ||
| chris cummings (Entelechy)
Junior Member Username: Entelechy Post Number: 246 Registered: 5-2001 |
Check out www.overlawyered.com Couldn't agree more Dave This is the shape of the future if we don't start waking up as a society. DES, you crack me up, but read Catherine Crier's "The Case Against Lawyers" as I've referenced before - I'm sure you could find hundreds to take your case(s)! And yes, there are obviously exceptions - my cousin graduated from Stanford Law and works to protect the environment. Also got to know Morris Dees, who founded the Southern Poverty Law Center while we were filming in Alabama | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 4242 Registered: 8-2002 |
Jim, then i'm going to sue the auto companies for allowing the ads that are put out, advocating speed and such, which has all given me a false sense of security, which subdued me into driving like the people in the commercials, thus resulting in my "record"... Anyone know the number to Jacoby & Meyers...? | ||
| Jim E (Jimpo1)
Intermediate Member Username: Jimpo1 Post Number: 1816 Registered: 7-2001 |
DES, your perpetual poverty is a result of your driving record.... | ||
| Tom RM (Tgitom)
Junior Member Username: Tgitom Post Number: 111 Registered: 8-2002 |
what a joke, absolutely ridicoulous!!! | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 517 Registered: 11-2002 |
It's hard to believe isn't it. You have to wonder about the lawyer that is handling the case. I am sure whoever it is isn't doing it out of the goodness of thier heart, they see dollar signs! | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 4239 Registered: 8-2002 |
Good. Now i'm gonna sue the government 'cause my car insurance is too high and they make the affordable car insurance rates requirements too high for people like me, thus placing me in a position of perpetual poverty. Can i get some council up in this mutha...? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1759 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave always picks the luney cases. He may be right about this one. I haven't seen the actual case. Art | ||
| Bob Campen (Bob308gts)
Member Username: Bob308gts Post Number: 587 Registered: 9-2001 |
Waiting for you Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1657 Registered: 1-2002 |
The families of 14 illegal Mexican immigrants are suing the US government because all 14 died from heat exposure in the desert when they were trying to illegally enter the US across the USA/Mexico border. The attorneys state that the US Government makes is much too hard on people trying to enter the US legally and they have to resort to illegal entry that is unsafe.     |