From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: Tort
To: lml
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:45:02 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1349753@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <000001c6c849$650ce6f0$6501a8c0@Main>
References: <000001c6c849$650ce6f0$6501a8c0@Main>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Posted for "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa@hometel.com>:

  Brent,
  
  I too have thought long and hard about product liability laws. It's far too
  easy in our litigious society to force honorable, competent people out of
  business for the sake of personal gain.
  
  My response has been to suggest a system such as that used in the UK - loser
  pays. It's pretty simple really; the loser of the case pays all the costs of
  litigation.
  
  It would be a self-regulating system. Lawyers considering a contingency case
  will think long and hard before bringing a weak/frivolous suit if they know
  they will pay the other team when they lose. In our current system there's
  nothing to lose except their time.
  
  Likewise, lawyers of defendants with weak cases (i.e. it truly IS a faulty
  product) will strongly consider settlement to avoid additional costs. This
  makes it easier for those truly injured by a faulty product to recoup loses.
  In the current system, the lawyer gets at least a third of any settlement -
  I can see an individual negotiating his/her own settlement without legal
  representation under "loser pays." Probably why US lawyers are terrified of
  it...
  
  Either way, the number of cases actually going to court would surely
  diminish!
  
  Mark