Poll: the right to sue, take it away?

Do you think if we took away the right to sue others, we would eventually have to become responsible for ourselves?
post why you chose the answer you did !

 

I think the whole frivolous lawsuit thing is beyond ridiculous...lots of people out there trying to make $ off of other people and companies for stupid stuff, and some lawyers encouraging people to sue so that they can make money themselves off of others misery. There are some cases where a lawsuit may be necessary (clear cases of medical malpractice where the patient is disabled, etc. for life, and will have huge medical bills to cover), but, in the grand scheme of things, I think most lawsuits are unnecessary and frivolous. And, to answer the question directly, yes, it would make people take more responsibility for themselves...and that is a good thing!!

 

What happens to some people is not their faults and is, instead, another person's fault. It's those people who are sue-happy that ruin it for everyone.

We should NOT take the right away to sue people because if we are truely done wrong, we should be able to do something about it.

 

You mean it can't?

 

...

 

LOL

 

Its just typical of people to abuse a perfectly good system.

If theres money to be made some scumbag will abuse the system. Take the internet for instance. How many websites forums are abused by sex sites spamming them. How many junk emails do we receive each day.

Basically a forum is a nice system that serves a useful purpose. Unfortunately people abuse it because they can.

Its the same with the legal system. Used properly it stops people abusing others rights but equally it can be used to abuse peoples rights.

The trick is to get the scumbags and fine them heavily. Hit them where it hurts.

 

oooo yeah, I like revenge!

 

i think 90% of the time suing is frivilous.

 

Frivilous lawsuits should not be tolerated, however, there are circumstances where I believe that suing should be deemed acceptable. It just depends on the situation at hand.

 

frivilous lawsuits wouldn't be neccessary.......if bottom line was applied.....demand that people and businesses assume responsibility for their actions
nobody wants to accept blame when at fault...they want to pass the buck
the litigation of america....is breeding laziness and bankruptcy.....only to make lawyers richer
assume responsibility and there would be no need for lawsuits

 

i think that when someone takes someone to court the outcome should be transferred onto a public computer database. this way tradesmen and companies can protect themselves from vexatious litigants, if you are about to do work for someone by simply entering the persons name you can see if they have been naughty. the honest person on the other hand can look up in the database and see if a company is constantly in court and for what.

 

Define frivolous. If you lost a loved one or the ability to work, would that be frivious? If a hospital or it's staff killed one of your loved ones through some sort of stupid policy and you wanted the answer to your question, is that frivolous? Who's setting the bar? Don't buy into to cliche, glib titles put on actions that in many cases have a valid reason. Lobbyist will spin the sh*t so it meets their corporate sponsor's needs. Does it actually meet yours or protect your family? Many laws that were put into effect to protect the little guy in the past are being eroded, because people are buying into spin. Think about it if a case is truly frivolous the Judge will throw it out. And think again when you back legislation that limits your legal rights. Whose are you protecting your's or the corporations?

And bankruptcy, don't get me started on that. The reason most individuals have to file for it is because money lenders and banks have been allowed to practice predatory practices in the last 20 years. Who's responsible for the little guy that wants his family to have a dvd player, or the bank that extends credit to someone they know is at risk of failure to pay. Now they've made it next to impossible for the little guy to file, but not the corporations. Let's make those that are truly responsible, actually responsible, as in the corporations that now live off shore, but seem to have more control of our domestic policy than the little guy that actually pays the bills. How many credit card offers do you get a week, how about limiting those?

 

I suppose it depends on your point of view.

When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, there wasn't anyone who had a doubt that Exxon had to be financially "punished". Not that any particular person regarded this accident as his own private lotto win - the public had a right to demand ammends for real damages incurred.

But I wonder about cases of ambulance chasing attorneys. Maybe the better idea would be not to prohibit law suits, but to simply limit the amount of monetary ammends that are awarded by courts. Should cities really be responsible for traffic accidents, where the supposed crulpit is a fist-sized pot hole, they didn't get around to fixing? Does this justify a royalty court award of a million or more dollars for pain and suffering?

 

There was the great story recently in the UK of the guy that took an email spammer to court and won.

Kind of turns the tables on the argument about frivilous suing. Wouldn't we all like to go into our email accounts without having to delete 100s of them first. I know there are spam controls and all that shit now but they hardly work do they.

This year according to spammers I could have got my hands on about $40000000000 because of some Kenyan mac daddy dying or Ivory Coast War Lord Dying.

They aren't even the worse typeds of spam because they are so obviously fake but I can see how some people get caught out with the phishing attacks because not everyone is computer savvy.

So sue the spammers.

 

Nowadays people are sueing each other for the most stupid things, it has become purely a situation in which the people with the most money to spend on lawyers almost always win. But I don't think it's a good idea to take away the right to sue in every case. Some people just deserved to be sued, we only need to have a limit so we only sue people of necessary.

 

The winner of the "California Idiot Advocate of the Year Award for 1986" went to the lawyer who defended a women who managed to run over a father and his son, while on a bicylce trip on a Sunday afternoon.

The women was charged with:
1) DUI with 2.2 ppm
2) Extending the speed limit at more than 20 mph
3) Manslaughter in 2 cases

Her defending attorney filed suit against Laguna County for failing to post a warning sign that the highway could become dangerous if the posted speed limit was exceeded, or any warning signs that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs might be dangerous and effect motorists reaction speeds.

The judge reviewing the case de-barred the attorney for six months for demonstrating poor judgement in filing such a case and ill-advising his client. I think his comment went something like, "I have never before been presented a case like this, where the defendent's attorney used such frivolous and flimsy arguments to distract from the accusations and evidence, in the obvious hope to get the state to drop the case against his client."

 

There are a whole list of cases where people have managed to sue without being in the right.

I used to have a bookmark but I lost it but here are a couple.

A woman successfully sued McDonalds because the apple in the hot apple pie was Hot and scalded her mouth.

A woman successfully sued a department store after she fell over a child in the store and broke her leg. The child she fell over was her own child.

 

I really think this is exactly the type of case civil courts are set up to resolve. All parties stand to benefit, but only one claims rights to that benefit. If you can't resolve it yourself, this is exactly what the courts were formed to take care of.

 

in the above case if I was the judge there is only one thing to consider.

1. Who owns the cup.

You could say that it was the teacher but as the teacher had thrown it into a trash can he was disposing of the item. Had that item been thrown in the back of a truck, sent to a landfill site somewhere he would not have cared about said cup and if someone offered him an old paper cup that he used ten years ago now would he want it. The answer clearly no and he would claim its not his. So I don't think he has any claims to the money. He threw away his claims when he threw away the cup.

This leaves the two girls.

The girl who picked the cup out of the trash has claimed ownership of the cup by pulling it out of the trash. She has merely asked the other girl for help tearing off the strip.

Quick question to ask the helper.

Q: Did the girl say she would split any potential prize money with you if you happened to have a winning cup.

The girl could not truthfully say yes therefore the cup for me belonged to the girl who was pulling it out of the trash and noone has any further claims on the prize. Simple as that.

Morally the girl could give some of her winnings to the other girl but does not have to and it should only be considered a gesture of good will.

As for the teacher. Hard luck mate, get out of my courtroom before I let the other students egg you.