pchapman 279
Luminous 0
Good points.
Agreed.
Agreed.
'In an insane society a sane person seems insane.' Mr. Spock
mpohl 1
Easy!
In practically all civilized countries: You sue and loose: you have to pay the other party's legal cost. You sue, and win: the other party will have to pay your cost too.
Pretty effective, if you ask me.
In practically all civilized countries: You sue and loose: you have to pay the other party's legal cost. You sue, and win: the other party will have to pay your cost too.
Pretty effective, if you ask me.
QuoteLawyers should be fined for every time they sue someone which doesn't make it to a certain stage of the process.
There has to be some way to get away from the 'SUE EVERYONE!' mentality.
QuoteIf an AFFI or Coach falls below their appropriate pull altitude without pulling & while chasing a student, an argument can be made that they are negligent. An AFFI or Coach pulling in view of a student is a strong signal to the student to pull.
Staying around in freefall may indicate to the student that 'everything is ok'.
That might be true in some circumstances, such as a student who has lost altitude awareness and is making no attempt to open a parachute. In the case of a student who is trying, and failing, to open a parachute, I think the angle that it 'may' send the wrong message is incorrect. The student already knows that it's time to open a parachute, and the instructor is making an effort to assist.
ghost47 18
QuoteEasy!
In practically all civilized countries: You sue and loose: you have to pay the other party's legal cost. You sue, and win: the other party will have to pay your cost too.
Pretty effective, if you ask me.
So, imagine this:
Poor Guy buys a toaster at Target. When he goes home, plugs the toaster in, it blows up, seriously injuring him.
Poor Guy finds a Crap Lawyer to file a lawsuit against Rich Company, who made the toaster. Poor Guy doesn't know that Crap Lawyer is crappy -- Crap Lawyer talks a good game.
Rich Company hires Awesome Lawyer to defend the lawsuit. Awesome Lawyer kicks Crap Lawyer's ass in court 'cause, well, he's awesome and the other guy is crappy.
Poor Guy not only loses his case, isn't compensated for his injury, but he is now saddled with six-figures in attorneys' fees that Rich Company spent to defend itself. The rest of his life is ruined, 'cause whatever he earns above the basics needed to feed and shelter himself is going to be garnished by Rich Company.
If you're Poor Guy, does the possibility of this outcome make you a lot less likely to sue? If so, is that a good or bad thing?
If you think a good thing, then by all means, a loser pays system is a good thing. If you think a bad thing, then the decision is not so easy.
Hellis 0
Or you just harden the fuck up and stop whining at silly shit.
Your example of the "Poor Guy vs Rich Company" is exactly how our system is set up here in Canada and in Austria, Australia and a number of other countries (loser pays). There is always a compromise in life and that is one of them.
In the US you have dumb asses spilling hot coffee in their lap while in the drive through and they get $10M. People who sue their doctor because the appendectomy they needed had the incision left-to-right instead of right-to-left. Costs $50K to defend the frivolous suit but settle for $20K just to make it go away even though you did nothing wrong. Dr. insurance premiums go up.
A prime example of how the USPA deals with this.... only $50K in 3rd party insurance. They admit if they had the $2M coverage like Canada has for CSPA, it would attract all the lawyer flies who sue for fun in the US.
I like our set up. I keeps all the scum at bay and if you are a poor person and you find a lawyer, the lawyer must have some honest ability to see it is a winnable case because he would more than likely loose out if he could not be paid. We have the king of class actions lawyers here in Canada. He takes all kinds of class action suits. He offers no charges at all when you register, nothing, no bill at all. All he does is take somewhere I'm guessing like 50% of the setlement if he wins:)
Check out how many he has on the go right now. Lawyers, gotta love em Clicky
In the US you have dumb asses spilling hot coffee in their lap while in the drive through and they get $10M. People who sue their doctor because the appendectomy they needed had the incision left-to-right instead of right-to-left. Costs $50K to defend the frivolous suit but settle for $20K just to make it go away even though you did nothing wrong. Dr. insurance premiums go up.
A prime example of how the USPA deals with this.... only $50K in 3rd party insurance. They admit if they had the $2M coverage like Canada has for CSPA, it would attract all the lawyer flies who sue for fun in the US.
I like our set up. I keeps all the scum at bay and if you are a poor person and you find a lawyer, the lawyer must have some honest ability to see it is a winnable case because he would more than likely loose out if he could not be paid. We have the king of class actions lawyers here in Canada. He takes all kinds of class action suits. He offers no charges at all when you register, nothing, no bill at all. All he does is take somewhere I'm guessing like 50% of the setlement if he wins:)
Check out how many he has on the go right now. Lawyers, gotta love em Clicky
If you're Poor Guy, does the possibility of this outcome make you a lot less likely to sue?
Quote
Makes it a lot less likely I'll be eatin' any toast!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
QuoteIf you're Poor Guy, does the possibility of this outcome make you a lot less likely to sue?
Quote
Makes it a lot less likely I'll be eatin' any toast!
Well, let's face it. It's an explosive situation and not one for any jelly-headed, white-bread lawyer that fails to butter up the jury.
Damn...now I'm hungry.My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
ghost47 18
QuoteYour example of the "Poor Guy vs Rich Company" is exactly how our system is set up here in Canada and in Austria, Australia and a number of other countries (loser pays). There is always a compromise in life and that is one of them.
I agree. The two warring values are "preventing frivolous law suits" versus "assuring that poor people have a venue for valid claims". I think everyone can agree that these are both good things. And I think it's reasonable to choose the first value over the second. My point really is that it is also reasonable to choose the second value over the first.
QuoteIn the US you have dumb asses spilling hot coffee in their lap while in the drive through and they get $10M.
While this case is often cited for runaway lawsuits, the actual facts of the case are a less outrageous than the soundbites make it out to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
You still may come down on the side of McDonald's, but I think the facts show that it is at least reasonable to think that McDonald's had some responsibility. So did the plaintiff (and in fact, the jury found that she was 20% in the wrong).
Also, her judgment was for a total of $640,000, not $10M.
QuoteI keeps all the scum at bay and if you are a poor person and you find a lawyer, the lawyer must have some honest ability to see it is a winnable case because he would more than likely loose out if he could not be paid.
The lawyer would also have to think about who he is going up against. The reason we have lawyers is because good lawyers can be very persuasive. So even if the case is good, it can be a very tough row to hoe when going against some very good lawyers with a lot of resources. In a loser-pays system, there is the added disincentive of having the rest of your life ruined if you lose.
There is also the flip side -- it makes it much easier for rich people to harass poor people.
Again, it's a question of competing values. I'm honestly not trying to say one is better than the other -- I lean towards making sure poor people have a venue to address their grievances, but I totally see how one could go the other way. My point is just that it's not so black and white.
chuckakers 426
QuoteQuote
Poor Guy finds a Crap Lawyer to file a lawsuit against Rich Company, who made the toaster.
Poor Guy should've checked out Crap Lawyer before hiring him.Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
JerryBaumchen 1,436
Hi ghost,
Disclaimer: I believe that this dz should not have been the subject of a lawsuit, for many reasons.
Thanks for bringing up some of the truth about the infamous MacDonald's coffee lawsuit.
It may be because my son is an attorney, but IMO the vast majority of commenters about the MacDonald's lawsuit have not a clue regarding the facts.
I have seen the HBO film HOT COFFEE. A lot of truthful info there.
JerryBaumchen
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/...nald%27s_Restaurants
Disclaimer: I believe that this dz should not have been the subject of a lawsuit, for many reasons.
Thanks for bringing up some of the truth about the infamous MacDonald's coffee lawsuit.
It may be because my son is an attorney, but IMO the vast majority of commenters about the MacDonald's lawsuit have not a clue regarding the facts.
I have seen the HBO film HOT COFFEE. A lot of truthful info there.
JerryBaumchen
QuoteAgain, it's a question of competing values. I'm honestly not trying to say one is better than the other -- I lean towards making sure poor people have a venue to address their grievances, but I totally see how one could go the other way. My point is just that it's not so black and white.
The issue of a 'loser pays' system is simple to solve. The loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner, but those legal fees should be limited to a 'reasonable' amount.
The idea with 'loser pays' isn't to provide a winfall for the winners (they just won, that's their winfall) it's to discouge frivilous lawsuits. So you the courts were to assign a 'value' to legal services, and then have an independent auditor (at the expense of the loser) make sure the legal fees submitted are 'appropriate', then you have your solution. It discourages frivilous lawsuits, and prevents Joe Public from being saddled with the bill from a $1000/hr corporate attorney.
In the case of Joe Public suing John Average, the loser may end up covering the winners legal fees in full. In the case of Joe Public suing McDonalds, McDonalds would still be on the hook for the balance of their $1000/hr attorney's fees, but that's the chance they take hiring a guy who charges $1000/hr. At least if the $1000/hr guy comes through Mickey D's will only be on the hook for $800-ish/hour.
In terms of skydiving lawsuits, if a DZ hires an 'avearge' priced lawyer, and they prevail in the suit, their legal fees might be covered in full.
ghost47 18
QuotePoor Guy should've checked out Crap Lawyer before hiring him.
That would certainly be prudent of him. The problem is, it's not always easy to tell good lawyers from bad. What do you go by?
Win-loss record? That helps to some degree, but maybe this guy just had a string of cases where the facts were very much against his client, so he lost them all. Conversely, maybe he was going up against an even crappier lawyer.
The lawyer's apparent command of the law? Almost any lawyer worth his salt can make a pronouncement sound authoritative. Unless you actually know that area of the law, it's hard to tell that he's not giving you the full story.
Recommendations? Those are often based on outcome -- my lawyer got me $2.1 million. Okay, but maybe you had a really obvious and easy case that a fifth grader could have won.
State Bar complaints? That a person has none is good, but definitely not indicative of quality.
So, while I fully agree that someone should check out lawyers before hiring them, it's often a difficult thing to do if you're not a lawyer yourself (and sometimes even then).
Andy9o8 2
QuoteHi ghost,
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/...nald%27s_Restaurants
Disclaimer: I believe that this dz should not have been the subject of a lawsuit, for many reasons.
Thanks for bringing up some of the truth about the infamous MacDonald's coffee lawsuit.
It may be because my son is an attorney, but IMO the vast majority of commenters about the MacDonald's lawsuit have not a clue regarding the facts.
I have seen the HBO film HOT COFFEE. A lot of truthful info there.
JerryBaumchen
Yes. FWIW, here is a thumbnail about the correct facts of the McDonalds case (not the mythical ones that people believe, and repeat):
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4022449;search_string=mcdonald%27s%20coffee;#4022449
QuoteQuoteAgain, it's a question of competing values. I'm honestly not trying to say one is better than the other -- I lean towards making sure poor people have a venue to address their grievances, but I totally see how one could go the other way. My point is just that it's not so black and white.
The issue of a 'loser pays' system is simple to solve. The loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner, but those legal fees should be limited to a 'reasonable' amount.
The idea with 'loser pays' isn't to provide a winfall for the winners (they just won, that's their winfall) it's to discouge frivilous lawsuits. So you the courts were to assign a 'value' to legal services, and then have an independent auditor (at the expense of the loser) make sure the legal fees submitted are 'appropriate', then you have your solution. It discourages frivilous lawsuits, and prevents Joe Public from being saddled with the bill from a $1000/hr corporate attorney.
In the case of Joe Public suing John Average, the loser may end up covering the winners legal fees in full. In the case of Joe Public suing McDonalds, McDonalds would still be on the hook for the balance of their $1000/hr attorney's fees, but that's the chance they take hiring a guy who charges $1000/hr. At least if the $1000/hr guy comes through Mickey D's will only be on the hook for $800-ish/hour.
In terms of skydiving lawsuits, if a DZ hires an 'avearge' priced lawyer, and they prevail in the suit, their legal fees might be covered in full.
Who ya gonna get to write that into law?...the lawyers?
ghost47 18
QuoteThe issue of a 'loser pays' system is simple to solve. The loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner, but those legal fees should be limited to a 'reasonable' amount.
. . .
In the case of Joe Public suing McDonalds, McDonalds would still be on the hook for the balance of their $1000/hr attorney's fees, but that's the chance they take hiring a guy who charges $1000/hr. At least if the $1000/hr guy comes through Mickey D's will only be on the hook for $800-ish/hour.
So what you're proposing is loser-pays, but only up to a certain amount per hour.
While I agree that this limits the cost to the loser (and thereby decreases the deterrent to frivolous lawsuits by that amount), it also still remains a significant concern for the potential loser.
It is very possible, especially for cases that are fact-intensive, to reach 1000 legitimate hours of billable time for a case that goes to trial. Even at the reduced rate of $200 per hour that you propose, that's $200,000. That could still be enough to ruin the rest of your life. (Think how much money you clear each year after taxes, rent, and food. Divide that into $200,000 + annual interest. That's how many years you will have no money for any extras. In California, interest on judgments is 10% per year. So if you don't pay more than $20,000 per year on a $200,000 judgment, you will never pay it off.)
The instructor pulling can indeed be a great signal to a student to pull. Maybe that works great if facing each other, but if the student is already struggling with a main pull, he's focused on that, maybe turning or tumbling, and may not even notice an instructor pulling.
So for a situation like the one that started the thread, a timely pull by the instructor is not so much trying to help the student as officially abandoning the student as per the rules, to save the instructor.
Getting sucked low, despite definitely being a screwup, could actually play well for a court -- "attempting to the last moment to save the student, despite the rules."
Edit:
Here we sort of get at the definition of heroism. If you charge the machine gun nest alone, you're probably an idiot. Unless you actually destroy it singlehandedly, in which case you're a hero.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites