Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:15:36 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1350030@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.83.119.58; envelope-from=cjensen@dts9000.com
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Tort
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Tort
Thread-Index: AcbJHm+9TGEi63M7Tl6LQjpRMhRIAAAA7B2g
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>

Mark,

The downside of the 'loser pays' English system is it limits access to
the courts to the rich, be it individual or corporations, who can
tolerate a loss as a part of the normal course of business.  The less
generously endowed individual (financially!) may as not even bother
bringing the claim to the attention of a badly-behaved Corporation,
since they can tell them to 'go pound sand', and if you don't like it,
'sue me'.  Of course, what individual can risk litigation if a loss,
even on a technicality and despite the merits, will bankrupt the
individual every time.  So, the loser pays system is attractive on the
face of it, but it has a serious downside of limiting access to the
judicial system, even for cases that have substantial merit.

Chuck


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On=20
> Behalf Of Marvin Kaye
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:45 AM
> To: Lancair Mailing List
> Subject: [LML] Re: Tort
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Posted for "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa@hometel.com>:
>=20
>   Brent,
>  =20
>   I too have thought long and hard about product liability=20
> laws. It's far too
>   easy in our litigious society to force honorable, competent=20
> people out of
>   business for the sake of personal gain.
>  =20
>   My response has been to suggest a system such as that used=20
> in the UK - loser
>   pays. It's pretty simple really; the loser of the case pays=20
> all the costs of
>   litigation.
>  =20
>   It would be a self-regulating system. Lawyers considering a=20
> contingency case
>   will think long and hard before bringing a weak/frivolous=20
> suit if they know
>   they will pay the other team when they lose. In our current=20
> system there's
>   nothing to lose except their time.
>  =20
>   Likewise, lawyers of defendants with weak cases (i.e. it=20
> truly IS a faulty
>   product) will strongly consider settlement to avoid=20
> additional costs. This
>   makes it easier for those truly injured by a faulty product=20
> to recoup loses.
>   In the current system, the lawyer gets at least a third of=20
> any settlement -
>   I can see an individual negotiating his/her own settlement=20
> without legal
>   representation under "loser pays." Probably why US lawyers=20
> are terrified of
>   it...
>  =20
>   Either way, the number of cases actually going to court would surely
>   diminish!
>  =20
>   Mark
>  =20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
>=20