Quantcast

Jump to content


Should America Adopt "Loser Pays"?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:27 PM

Well, first off, sorry you Canadians and Australians for making a topic about America only, but YOU guys already have the loser pays system. =P So it'd be a moot point...

What is a loser pays system? Basically, it means, that when you go to court with someone, if you lose the case, you have to pay their legal fees in addition to whatever fine the court says you have to pay. As it is right now, most people dread going to court, even if they're right - because of the legal fees. This is why a lot of businesses who get sued settle outside of court - for millions. Why? Because it would cost them even MORE to pursue the case, even if they win.

America is the only Western country that has this system. Most other countries DO have the loser pays system - which is called the English Rule - and there is a lot of advocacy going on right now in our country concerning it - people want it!


This is a good passage describing WHY tort lawsuits and lawyers are hurting our economy and society. Tort, in case anyone doesn't know, means (in this case) frivilous lawsuits, or lawsuits where the plaintiff is suing for more money than seems appropriate.

In case no one wants to READ that pdf - and it's a fun read, but whatever - I'll summarize Stossel's points:

Lawsuits are a necessary evil that should be used sparingly - we are, of course, talking about civil law, not criminal law. Civil law is where an individual sues someone, criminal law is where the government sues someone for breaking the law. ;) In addition to loser pays, Stossel argues that some reform must be made in the legal process as well

The adverse effects of tort lawsuits:
  • Lawyers make more money than their clients - after all is said and done, no matter if you win or lose, the legal fees are just horrible. Even if you're awarded millions, you may only get a couple hundred thousand while your lawyer - being paid $500/hr - takes all your money. The question is not "Who needs all that money, anyway?" That's another debate. =P
  • Higher prices - businesses lose out a lot of money, whether or not they go to court. Right now, a business could be settling for millions outside of court. What does this mean for you? Higher prices on goods.
  • Loss of jobs - in addition to higher prices, businesses often have to cut down on their work force - that is, if they didn't go bankrupt. =P
  • Information overload - right now, you've got a bazillion warning labels over everything - this is because of lawsuits. The problem is - do you read all of those warning labels? No. Information overload means that the IMPORTANT information is covered up by stuff that really isn't that important.
  • Lawsuits are making policy, not Congress - this speaks for itself. If someone gets sued, no one else will do the same thing they did. It's making laws indirectly, and often with much higher consequences.
  • Slow & unregulated legal process - in the legislative branch, we WANT a slow process. The Constitution set it up like that. The judicial process, however, does not benefit from being slow. The only ones who do benefit are the ones getting paid by the hour - the lawyers! Criminals have a right to a speedy trial; 9 months is a speedy trial in a criminal case. A couple YEARS is normal for civil law, the process is so slow. Something needs to change!
  • Politicians are enamored - a lot of politicians are former lawyers or benefit in some way from politically active lawyers. They are unwilling to change the legal system because - why not? If they are getting millions in campaign money from lawyers, why the hell would they change the system?
  • They threaten our protectors and inventors - there used to be 25 vaccine companies in America, before vaccine suits began to be filed. Now, there's only five. You wonder why there's shortages during flu season? This is why. You wonder why it takes so long for new vaccines to be created? This is why. Why can't teachers mark papers with red ink in California? Ha, guess why! Our teachers, our inventors, our thinkers are being sued to death by tort lawsuits. Nobody wants to do research in America, that's how terrified they are. This needs to change. We used to be the forefront in medical technologies, and now we're lagging behind, because all of our medical research companies are either going bankrupt or shipping off overseas. And NOT for cheaper labor. =P
  • And finally, it encourages irresponsibility - if you're good enough, you can sue anyone for anything. There's a lady in San Francisco who sued her neighbours because their kid's basketball thumping against the ground caused her stress. How is that responsible? I've been talking a lot about economical consequences, but the social consequences exist, too. There's no RISK to frivilous lawsuits, and that's why people do them.
Now, of course, you're all asking...if this is so great, why aren't more people for it? Because lawyers are protecting the "little guy", they claim. The argument goes something like this...under English Rule, if someone sues you frivilously and you lose, you would pay. That's all fine and dandy, but the whole point of the English Rule is to discourage frivilous lawsuits. Why would you sue someone for something so stupid if there was a chance - a big chance - that you wouldn't win? It's all about risk, and the whole point of the current system is that there ISN'T any risk. There needs to be some, and hopefully, we can curve everything into check.

Anyway. That's a longer post than I thought, I'm sorry. I meant to keep it shorter. Alas.

So if you've gotten this far...

What do you think?

Edited by Casilla, 07 October 2006 - 10:04 AM.


#2 Icey Defeat

Icey Defeat
  • 8298 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:29 PM

Yes. Just Yes. Even though the onyl time I've been to court I've either lost of had it settled before going.

#3 Mystical

Mystical
  • 1020 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:35 PM

Only for civil cases should the loser pay

#4 Raui

Raui
  • 5687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:36 PM

yep it would benifit america alot

#5 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11533 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:36 PM

Completely completely agreed, Casi. Really that is one thing we need with suits... the other is a cap on pain and suffering.

#6 Icey Defeat

Icey Defeat
  • 8298 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:36 PM

Or in cases where the lawyer was over 5 grand or something.

#7 RandomNameIgnoreIt

RandomNameIgnoreIt
  • 1828 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 04:39 PM

Mmhm, as long as its not across the board applied to everything... I'm sure there are cases where it's not right for the loser to have to pay, and we'd have to look long and hard at examples of cases involving the loser rule in other countries, and try to sort out anything like that before using it. I rarely ever think we should just blanket rules over everything.

#8 Cory

Cory
  • Dinnerbone'd

  • 7487 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 05:43 PM

I think it is obvious that America should switch over to a loser pays system.

My dad always taught me that anyone can sue anyone for anything, but it doesnt mean they will win. A lot of companies will just buy their way out of all the bad publicity and court issues. When they should just fight it and make the loser pay all the cost. Lawsuits are far to common now and need to be slowed down. Its just ridiculous when a woman sues McDonald's for making her fat or because she burnt her tongue on hot coffee.


The courts should be reformed first though. I mean seriously its one thing for a women to be able to sue McDonald's for making her fat, but its another when she actually wins.

#9 Freddy

Freddy
  • 5500 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:02 PM

yeah, it would suck if u lose, it would be cool if u win. i guess i would have to go with opposition. :(

#10 Icey Defeat

Icey Defeat
  • 8298 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:13 PM

Marine I hope you don't mind I quoted you on that mcdonalds line, but its so omg true...

#11 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:50 PM

Marine I hope you don't mind I quoted you on that mcdonalds line, but its so omg true...


Okay, here's the deal about the McDonald's hot coffee...the woman was in the right. Most people don't know the whole case, so I feel a need to defend her...

This is a seventy-nine year old lady. She was in the car with her son, and he was driving. She put the coffee cup between her legs, and was trying to remove the lid to put in cream and sugar.

The coffee spilled all over her lap.

Liquids between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (the temperature of the coffee) can cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds. She was wearing sweatpants at the time, which absorbed the coffee and held it close to her skin at those temperatures for ninety seconds.

She had third-degree burns on sixteen percent of her skin. Her genitals and inner thighs were completely disfigured. She had to have skin grafting done and two years of treatment.

When she originally sued McDonalds, all she wanted from them was $20,000 for her medical costs. McDonalds refused to settle the case, and thus they went to court. She won, of course, and the jury awared her $200k in compensatory damages - which was reduced to $160k because she was 20% at fault, they said (she did, after all, spill the coffee and chose to have it between her legs). She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, but that was later reduced to $480k.

Just think, though, how much she had to pay in legal fees. =P

Edited by Casilla, 17 March 2006 - 06:52 PM.


#12 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11533 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 06:57 PM

I think he was talking about the lady who sued McDonalds because they made her kid fat. But yes, I did not know that... Good, really good to know :o

#13 Cory

Cory
  • Dinnerbone'd

  • 7487 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 07:03 PM

How does that make her in the right? She ordered coffee and spilt it. I don't get how that would put her in the right. Maybe next time she will think about ordering coffee or maybe she will just order cold coffee.


Their was also a incident where a lady ate a hot pickle and scorched her mouth and her husband sued because they couldn't kiss or do other things. They used a better term but same situation.

That's how good America is getting right their. Its really not that big of a deal but when the when over stupid shit like this is when you start to think WTF?

#14 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 17 March 2006 - 08:11 PM

How does that make her in the right? She ordered coffee and spilt it. I don't get how that would put her in the right. Maybe next time she will think about ordering coffee or maybe she will just order cold coffee.
Their was also a incident where a lady ate a hot pickle and scorched her mouth and her husband sued because they couldn't kiss or do other things. They used a better term but same situation.

That's how good America is getting right their. Its really not that big of a deal but when the when over stupid shit like this is when you start to think WTF?


There's a HUGE difference between suing over a fat kid or a burnt tongue versus suing over third degree burns. Yes, she DID spill the coffee - the jury found her 20% at fault. However, McDonalds should have never served coffee that hot to begin with. 140 degrees, for example, is still hot enough for most people, and will stay warm for quite a while, but will NOT give you third degree burns within two seconds of skin contact. That was irresponsible on McDonalds's part. What if that had been her face? She could be blind, or worse - certainly, 180 degree coffee will fuse your eyeballs to your eyelids.

You obviously do not know the severity of third degree burns...

(disturbing image, warning!)

http://corpreform.ty...dburn-thumb.jpg

Now, picture that on your genital area, and perhaps you get the idea of the pain and suffering that woman went through.

Over coffee.

#15 Cory

Cory
  • Dinnerbone'd

  • 7487 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 08:14 PM

I understand perfectly the severity of third degree burns, but how is it McDonald's fault? So when people go to the beach, on their on free will, and get a first or second degree burn they should sue the city who owns the beach?

#16 RandomNameIgnoreIt

RandomNameIgnoreIt
  • 1828 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 08:28 PM

I understand perfectly the severity of third degree burns, but how is it McDonald's fault? So when people go to the beach, on their on free will, and get a first or second degree burn they should sue the city who owns the beach?


...She may have spilled the coffee on her own, but there is an expectation that when you order your morning coffee at the drivethrough (coffee in a moving vehicle, mcdonalds should be well aware the possibilities of spilling are increased) that it will not be hazardous.

Sure, if it was just a little spill and didn't too much, screw it, whatever. But it's common sense that you do not heat coffee to a temperature of 180 degrees and give it to someone driving a car in a flimsy container. Hell, if she spilled it, had a car accident, and it resulted in her death, I'd think there's a case for negligent homicide. Someone would have died because of the incredibly stupid and dangerous negligent acts of another.

You can't just randomly sell a product that causes third degree burns out a drivethrough window, it's not safe. And it's not the woman's fault, because the expectation is that when you go get coffee in the morning, it's not coffee that could cause you physical bodily harm. It's freakin' coffee.

#17 Cory

Cory
  • Dinnerbone'd

  • 7487 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 08:51 PM

With your logic though what would stop some one from running a red light getting in a wreck dieing then their family suing the car company for not putting breaks that worked before you foot went on them? You can not hold McDonald's responsible for the ladies negligence.

#18 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:33 PM

With your logic though what would stop some one from running a red light getting in a wreck dieing then their family suing the car company for not putting breaks that worked before you foot went on them? You can not hold McDonald's responsible for the ladies negligence.


Well, if your brakes didn't work...yes, you could sue for that, if indeed the brake pads SHOULD be working. If you just ran a red light, then no. When you drive, you get a license, which is basically an agreement of trust between you and the government. The government says, "Okay, you're a responsible adult, we'll allow you to drive and TRUST that you follow our laws." When you run the red light, you break the law and thus show not negligence, but an inability to be trusted while driving. Criminal is not civil law. When you sue in civil law, you are suing for mental/emtional damages. If you ran a red light, killed a person, and were persecuted by the state for breaking the law & homicide, the family of the person you killed could also sue you for emotional duress.

However, with driving, there is an assumption that when you get into a car, you are accepting ALL the risks involved with driving. It's like signing a liability waiver, heh.

Now, if you're saying that you could sue the brake company for not having intelligent brakes that brake the car for you...well, no, you couldn't. There is never any prior agreement or assumption between you and the brake company that your car is sentient.

When people sue companies over products, it because the product is faulty. It does something that it should not do, or something that isn't expected of it. For example, let us say you bought a can of Coke. After you drank the Coke, you became very ill and had to have your stomach pumped, because...oh, there were trace amounts of arsenic in your Coke. You could sue Coca Cola because there shouldn't be arsenic in the Coke, and they put a hazardous product out on the market (a product that shouldn't be that way, and without warning the public). Drinking a Coke is not a life-threatening process, it shouldn't be. It isn't meant to be by Coca Cola nor yourself.

However, if you cut your hand with a knife, could you sue Cutco? Well, it depends on the situation, but normally - no. It is assumed that the knife is dangerous and should be treated with caution. And there are probably warning labels on the box, to boot. There is nothing that Cutco could have done to prevent you from cutting your hand and it was your negligence only. The knives are intended to be sharp.

The coffee incident likens to the Coke. While coffee is hot and should be treated carefully, in no way shape or form is it assumed that coffee is hot enough to give you third degree burns. You should NOT be expecting a life-threatening situation from that coffee - it is not assumed by either you or McDonalds that the coffee is hazardous. Before the trial, the coffee didn't even have warning labels. Yes, everyone assumes coffee to be hot, but not that hot.

Edited by Casilla, 17 March 2006 - 09:35 PM.


#19 Cory

Cory
  • Dinnerbone'd

  • 7487 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:33 PM

Yeah its up to the judge. most of the time when someone wins the loser is told to pay a certain amount as requested pay trial cost. Other times the judge is a prick and just makes them pay whats asked for.

#20 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:49 PM

Yeah its up to the judge. most of the time when someone wins the loser is told to pay a certain amount as requested pay trial cost. Other times the judge is a prick and just makes them pay whats asked for.

Right, there is what is called damages, and of that, you have special(compensatory), general and punitive.

When you get awarded compensatory damages, it's money for things like medical costs, loss of time/money (because you couldn't work), loss of property or whatever. Sometimes a jury will award a very high compensatory damage, more than what is actually needed. And I suppose, in some cases, it is assumed that it will be used for legal fees. However, you are not directly awarded compensatory damages for legal fees.

Then you have general damages - which is very subjective and often up the jury - things like money for emotional duress, loss of reputation, disfigurement, etc. All emotional/mental/social things.

And then there's punitive damages, which is just there in order to punish the other side. For example, the jury initially awarded $2.7mil in punitive damages - the point of that was not that Stella Lieback deserved the money, but because the jury felt that McDonalds should be punished. Normally it's in punitive damages where the bulk of money comes in a court case. Like in the OJ Simpson case, the jury decided on something like $33 million in punitive damages. The point was not that the family deserved or needed $33 million, but because the jury wanted to punish OJ Simpson for what he had done (since he wasn't punished in the criminal case).

#21 Funnlecake

Funnlecake
  • 2076 posts

Posted 18 March 2006 - 03:02 PM

do you want to ruwen americas pass-time or what.
I think we should adopt it.

#22 Hawk

Hawk
  • hawk·ish·ly

  • 9688 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 March 2006 - 07:17 PM

Wow, we are arguing about McDonalds in a "Loser Pays" debate ;) Whatever.

I think that America should adopt the loser pays idea, rule, act, law, whatever you want to call it. It would greatly benefit everyone, especially larger companies. Im not sure where I heard it, but Walmart gets sued once every two hours. People need to take responsibility for their own foolish actions and face the consequences.
If someone slips and falls, and possibly breaks something, is that the stores fault? In most cases, no. Why should people be able to sue for such large amounts of money when it was their ignorant mistake that lead to their injury?
Adopting the "Loser Pays" system would drastically cut down on these stupid lawsuits. Also, people need to begin taking responsibility for their clumsiness, stupidity, ignorance, or all of the above.

That is why I am completely for this concept. I hate how people fail to take responsibility for their own actions. This will cut down on stupid lawsuits against larger corporations because the person trying to sue will end up picking up some hefty lawyers fees plus the corporations fees. I agree 100% with this concept.

#23 Stryyp

Stryyp
  • 2788 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 07:40 PM

Just my opinions about the coffee thing. And I do know the extent of damages related to 3rd degree burns, too :p

Just about everything you can buy carries some risk of killing or injuring you. Buy a burger like product at McDonalds, there is a very slight chance you will choke. There are things you can (Or can't) do to increase the risk. If you open your mouth as wide as you can, take a huge bite of your burger and swallow without chewing, and you choke and die is it your fault? Or maybe put something that you KNOW is potentially very hot inbetween your legs? I am not saying those cases are 100% the same, but get the same point. The lady greatly increased her risk for injury.

Keep in mind, by no stretch of the imagination is it completely her fault. I think more than 20%, but not completely. Yes, McDonalds should supply more durable containers for their coffee, and yes it was hotter than it should be, but the lady was being stupid for putting the cup inbetween her legs. I am just making speculations, but she could have asked her son to hold the coffee if she needed both her hands, or put it in a cupholder (Assuming her vehicle had good cupholders.)

But then again, I have McDonalds so whatever makes them suffer is okay with me.

Uhh... I forgot what I was going to say about loser pays xD Oops.

#24 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 March 2006 - 02:19 PM

Just my opinions about the coffee thing. And I do know the extent of damages related to 3rd degree burns, too :p

Just about everything you can buy carries some risk of killing or injuring you. Buy a burger like product at McDonalds, there is a very slight chance you will choke. There are things you can (Or can't) do to increase the risk. If you open your mouth as wide as you can, take a huge bite of your burger and swallow without chewing, and you choke and die is it your fault? Or maybe put something that you KNOW is potentially very hot inbetween your legs? I am not saying those cases are 100% the same, but get the same point. The lady greatly increased her risk for injury.

Keep in mind, by no stretch of the imagination is it completely her fault. I think more than 20%, but not completely. Yes, McDonalds should supply more durable containers for their coffee, and yes it was hotter than it should be, but the lady was being stupid for putting the cup inbetween her legs. I am just making speculations, but she could have asked her son to hold the coffee if she needed both her hands, or put it in a cupholder (Assuming her vehicle had good cupholders.)

But then again, I have McDonalds so whatever makes them suffer is okay with me.

Uhh... I forgot what I was going to say about loser pays xD Oops.

Lol, I watched a documentary about responsibility and citizenship and some other nonsense. They interviewed the lady who sued McDonalds for too hot of coffee. The fact is, every other fast food restauraunt serves coffee at the same tempurature, and so did something like three quarters of the diners/sit down restauraunts interviewed. So basically, she won because McDonalds failed to be different than the rest of the food industry.

How could it possibly be McDonalds fault that she spilled her coffee? She opened the container to pour sugar and cream in, not the manager, she put it between her knees, and decided to have it between her legs, and then she spilled it. How is it McDonalds fault that her hand slipped?

Pretty soon it'll get to the point that I can sue my shoe company if I fall off a cliff because I was wearing Nikes when I jumped.

Which is why we need looser pays laws in place. Stupid shit like this should not even be brought to court for fear of having to pay in the event of a loss. Frivolous lawsuits are all over the place.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users