Saying that "loser pays" will restrict access to the courts to only the rich
is a scare tactic. I don't believe it will restrict access, but I do believe
it will reduce the case load -- and subsequently earning opportunities for
lawyers...

How does "loser pays" restrict access? If the plaintiff has a good case then
any firm worth its fees will make sure the defendant's firm (who would be
liable for all litigation costs) is aware of the facts. This will serve only
to encourage settlement - which, in turn, will reduce the number of cases
actually heard. Just because a case doesn't make it to court doesn't mean
justice hasn't been served.

Saying that a case "with merit" might not be heard because a person without
means is unable to pay the defendant's fees is another way of saying the
case doesn't have "enough merit." Lawyers today take cases on contingency
(meaning they only get paid if the case is won) for cases that have little
or no merit because many times the defendant will settle to avoid the hassle
of a court case. How does this serve justice?

The only reason we need lawyers to argue cases for us in the US court system
is because we've allowed it (the courts) to become a battleground where a
case's "merits" are lost in the firestorm of debate over the "finer legal
points of law."

If someone has produced and knowingly marketed a faulty product for monetary
gain they should cover any costs incurred by those injured during the use of
said product. Present the facts -- only the facts -- and I believe the vast
majority of the public could easily determine the merits of such a case.

It's when you start all the arguments over whether a "fact" may or may not
be presented that we devolve into this quagmire we call a court system. It
wouldn't be "fair" to one party to or another to present a certain fact
because it might be inflammatory, or it wasn't obtained legally, or the
question wasn't asked properly...  I guess I need a lawyer to figure all
this out for me!

As far as punishment, we have a criminal court system in place to determine
criminal intent and set punishment for the guilty - punitive damages as a
form of punishment are nothing more than a judicial lottery. Sure, you might
put someone out of business, but putting them in jail would serve the same
purpose far more effectively and be a far better deterrent to boot.

In this country one can't buy a three-wheeled all-terrain-vehicle anymore.
Why? Because some people killed themselves, or worse, allowed their children
to kill themselves while operating them. Does that mean these vehicles were
knowingly produced and marketed to kill people? No, but I'll bet you the
companies making them knew they were dangerous to operate -- just as the
people who bought them knew they were dangerous.

Most people instinctively know that dangerous activities frequently result
in DEATH or INJURY; that's why we refer to them as dangerous. In today's
courts it also means we shouldn't allow anyone to produce and market
products that help us engage in dangerous activities!

I believe we should all be allowed to choose our own activities with the
understanding that we must accept the consequences. We've gotten too far
away from personal responsibility in our country. It's always someone else's
fault, or maybe just partly someone else's fault -- we need a lawyer to tell
us how much.

Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
www.legacyfgbuilder.som