This is what's wrong with the legal system.

I don't get it? Let the jury decide...who would you rather decide, some government employee? If the jury finds the plaintiff's case credible,they will award damages. If the jury finds his case frivolous, they should order him to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. No system is perfect, but our jury system is the best in the world and better than any other alternative.

 

So what exactly is your question?

Seems like the title of this thread should be "What is wrong with litigious America?" No?

I am waiting for the lawsuits about those damn roller shoes to come about (if they haven't already).

 

I'm going to go run into a light pole and sue it for reacting unreasonably after I yell for it to watch out and ring my bell.

 

I remember growing up when an accident was an accident. Can't imagine suing an 11 year old.

 

I'd be highly pissed if I was one of this doctor's business partners. The guy works in a fertility clinic of all places, and he's going after a kid. I'll bet business really takes off for him and his partners with all of the press associated with this case.

 

How can any adult EXPECT a certain action or reaction from a kid ?
He is at fault, he should know better, he may be a good doctor, but apparently he has zero common sense.

 

No, but if you sue because of WHERE they put the light pole, you will probably win.

 

As a trial attorney for 21+ years, it has been my observation that it is people like us on FChat, or the lack thereof, that are the biggest problem with the legal system in the USA. What I mean by that is successful well educated people often do everything they can to get out of jury duty...so guess who are left...the uneducated, unemployed/underemployed folks who see $20 a day and a free meal as a pretty good deal...(we refer to them as jurors with a lottery mentality)....especially if the defendant has money, which was likely the case since the accident occurred in the good doctor's neighborhood. So, how can we fix the system? - Don't try to get out of jury duty the next time you're summoned...sure it will be a pain in the rear...but, if you want the jury system to change, that's the way to do it...not have some legislature take away your jury trial rights by fiat...remember, you or your family may just need a reasonable jury one day...

 

Frank, you bring up a very good point.

 

why does this need to be decided by a Jury and not the judge ?

 

I have not read this thread...........but all I can say is that the legal system is f*cked the world over...........

 

The doctor should be found guilty of being a doofus. Why did he need to ride his bicycle so close to the girl if he was going to pass her? It's the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to assume the other doesn't see you and to ensure there's enough space just in case. Especially at a break-neck speed like 8mph!

 

So this doctor, who couldn't avoid a kid skating away from him, "excelled" at biking? I think not.

 

Cyclists and in-line skate boarders both think they own the road. It was INEVITABLE they two would eventually meet. And it was inevitable that one would sue the other.

A story:

I have a friend who had a bicyclist run into his driver side door of his pickup. The friend was driving 30 mph in 30 mph zone. As my friend was calling the ambulance the bicyclist was yelling at my friend for being in HIS way. The biker was going too fast and could not stop.

Moral: Watch out for these people, they are ALWAYS right. Not too smart to take on a 2 ton truck though.

 

Why does this even have to make it to court? It should be thrown out and the doctor forced to do 1000 hours of community service for being a ******.

I remember about 10 years ago some lady being on 20/20, John Stasil report(sp?), she had sued her neighbor because the kids basketball dribbling (in the afternoon mind you as well) was causing her emotional distress. She had also sued a large number of other people. I think she was being barred from suing anyone again because she had filed so many times.

 

This story cracks me up. I bet this doctor has been an advocate of tort reform when it comes to medical malpractice. However, when he is hurt, he is ready to go to war. Big corporations also like tort reform when it comes to suits against them, but they are some of the first to use their lawyers and the threat of litigation to intimidate anyone in their sites. Ultimately, guys like our good doctor here will become a poster boy for corporate and insurance interests who will want to label him as illustrative of the state of our legal system in order to convince the public that they should give up or limit their right of redress in the judicial system. I hope everyone here realizes that big insurance hopes that this guy will win his case. They recognize that cases like this are not the norm. However, insurance companies, right wing interest groups and corporate advocacy groups, do their best to bring these rare cases to light in order to influence the public who serve on juries and vote on tort reform. Of course the media, which is for the most part lazy, loves a man bites dog story and is an unwitting assistant to this propaganda. Unfortunately, so are some members of Ferrarichat.

How does all of this affect you? Well if you get hurt and have to go to trial, your jury will more likely be filled with people who believe that guys like this good doctor are representative of you, the plaintiff. They will think that you are more likely a guy out for a quick buck, than a guy that was really injured as the result of negligence of the defendant. Knowing that in most jurisdictions you will face such a hostile jury, the insurance company, representing the guy that was talking on his cell phone when he rear ended you, will substantially discount your claim. If there was not a lot of damage to your car, then you will be treated as a fraud. In most jurisdictions insurance companies feel free to discount all claims, especially small ones, knowing that the victim’s only recourse will be to file a lawsuit in front of a jury that has been conditioned to believe that most plaintiffs are frauds. That is why, where I live, it is the insurance company that asks for a jury trial. It has been a successful tactic in my area as insurance companies are now winning on liability on 50% of the rear end collision cases that go to trial. They argue it was just an accident or that the plaintiff could not have been hurt in such a small accident. The insurance company lawyers will go to trial and offer no proof for this assertion. They don’t need to, as the members of the jury have already been convinced before they ever entered the courtroom.

Unfortunately, this reality is not limited to just my area. It is a nationwide campaign that has resulted in the public giving the Allstates and State Farms of the world billions of dollars and leaving victims shaking their heads in disbelief. Here is a story which appeared on Anderson Cooper in which CNN’s investigation revealed that insurance companies have been delaying, denying and defending small claims, knowing that the public will bail them out for the most part and even when they don’t they have made it economically unviable for the plaintiff to fight them. The story is as follows and can be found in the middle of the page at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/07/acd.02.html

 

I think that the jury will do the right thing seeing a doctor suing a little girl over an accident he seems to have caused by running in to her.



What really scares me and churns my stomach is the transcript that Lloyd posted. Insurance companies are pure evil. A powerful lobby, changing laws, sponsoring "tort reform" by paying for scandalous misinformation when it loses, charging doctors obscenely high rates then blaming the lawyers... just evil.

 

Ryan, I expect such actions from insurance companies. What really bothers me is that the public has bought into all their propaganda and the insurance companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.

Jason, you need to be aware of the fact that John Stossel has had a hard on against lawyers for a long time. I wonder if he was involved in a bitter divorce or if he had a bad lawyer defending him on some sodomy case against him. In any event, he is far from being an objective reporter and has aligned himself with a variety of conservative groups. He has also shown a willingness to shape the facts to meet the needs of his story line. See the following articles for an interesting look at Mr. Stossel:

http://www.salon.com/media/media961022.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1887
http://archive.salon.com/media/feature/2000/02/25/stossel/
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1682
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/stosseljunkman.cfm

 

It is for this reason that tort law is the least appealing to me here in law school, although it is the most interesting to read. I think the jury will do the right thing in the end.

 

Are you kidding? Torts was the best thing going in first year!

What was surprising to me was that I came to law school with a business undergrad degree after living in several countries and regions of the US, thinking I would go international corporate or private equity... but securities regulation was the class that made me want to shoot myself in the face, and my worst grade was in Structuring Venture Capital and Private Equity (taught by a K&E partner from Chi-town, actually).

 

if the doctor was the prominant he shouldnt have to sue anybody. Take this one to judge judy, she would have knocked it out in a half hour plus commercials.

 

This was the important point that Assoc. Prof David Studdert made at a keynote address back in 2005, at which I was present. It is the insurers who are rorting doctors and promoting 'misinformation'.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press05102006.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/DavidStuddert.html

 

You can not collect from an 11 year old girl. She has no assets. This is an insurance claim and his company won't pay till he has a judgment. They think he is full of it too. That's it in a nutshell. The good doc has made a claim on his disability policy. He wants some time off with pay.
Frank's comment on the jury itself has some merit. However, most times anyone with some sense is discharged because they pick the people easiest to sway with crap.