<p>
</p>
<p>Potentially, a LOT to the defendants. An attorney can continue to appeal since it’s only his own time. (Think about the case against a mom & pop dry cleaner over a set of pants.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Loser pays all legal fees. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If his claim is legit, he wins, justice is served, and he collects $ for his time. If his claim is not legit, he does not burden the tax payors of Houston for defending a non-legit claims (and his foolishness/arrogance).</p>
<p>Do you believe that all legitimate claims result in a win?</p>
<p>negative, cartera, but skinner asked for an alternative, and I proposed one. Since ya gotta draw the line somewhere, I’d draw it on the side of eliminating frivolous suits (even if that means that some legit claims never get addressed). The contrary to that, is our system today, where innocent people/companies have to spend money defending themselves and settling bcos its cheaper than defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ITT 0Ls show off their law school knowledge?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is where we disagree then. I don’t believe that frivolous claims are as big a problem as you do. I didn’t see a great number of them when I practiced and my friends who practice don’t see them as a big problem now. There are some silly ones that are trotted out over and again, but they are the exception, not the rule. I do believe that discouraging legitimate claims results in the greater harm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm, are you aware that non-attorneys can appeal too? Simple yes or no question.</p>
<p>Oh, and your 20k estimate from before – did it include appeals? Simple yes or no question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, so let’s suppose the dry cleaners stains and ruins your $100 shirt and refuses to make good on it; you take them to small claims court; they bring in an employee who lies and says that the shirt was already stained when you brought it there; the judge decides you haven’t proven your case. It’s ok with you if you are now on the hook to the cleaners for $5000?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree 100%. Frivolous claims are actually quite rare. On the other hand, every legitimate claim carries a serious risk of failure. Under a “loser pays” system, very few people would ever pursue legitimate claims against the sleazy car dealer who lied to them; or against the bank which cheated them; etc. etc. There would be just too great a risk that the other side would come in with lies and/or BS legal arguments, win the case, and hit the plaintiff with a big fat legal bill.</p>
<p>To make matters worse, businesses would be incentivized to cheat their customers far more than they already do because they know very few customers would actually file suit over it.</p>
<p>Similarly lots of employers would push their employees to work uncompensated overtime knowing that there is very little risk of an overtime lawsuit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give me a flipping break! The incentive to business to operate fairly is to get more and repeat business. These days, customer reviews on the web make business transactions even more transparent.</p>
<p>Yeah, the threat of lawsuits is what makes this country great. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t mind my asking, how old are you? And how many times in your life have you purchased some good or service only to find that it was unsatisfactory or otherwise did not perform as promised?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely. Without the threat of lawsuits far more people would dishonor their contractual obligations, people would start resolving disputes with AK-47s, and our modern economy would come grinding to a halt just like in any country without rule of law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Old enough to have started three successful small businesses and have raised kids who are now in high school and college. I have been dissatisfied with many things I have purchased. In every case, I blamed myself for not researching or doing enough due diligence before I bought (that’s called “taking responsibility”). I wouldn’t even consider suing in those situations. As a businessman, I have utilized attorneys and have been satisfied with their services. Many of the others I have met, however, I have little use for. You seem like a nice guy, but you’re seriously deluded about the value of your profession and the level it is currently being practiced in this country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Strawmen always make the best supporting points. Do they teach that in LS? :D</p>
<p>btw: Does Britain – which is known for a loser’s pays law – have a lot of gun-totin’ rascals?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you always blamed yourself for every (commercial) lie told to you and every (commercial) broken promise made to you?</p>
<p>Did you ever demand satisfaction in those situations?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually you are the one who is deluded if you seriously believe that the United States could continue to function without lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Say what? Another poster stated the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I was responding to, so it was perfectly reasonable for me to respond as I did. </p>
<p>If you disagree, please QUOTE the point you believe I misrepresented and then QUOTE me where I misrepresented it.</p>
<p>Failing that, please admit that I was not attacking a strawman and apologize.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not that I’m aware.</p>
<p>Now please either (1) QUOTE me where I claimed that loser pays laws would result in breakdown of rule of law; or (2) admit that I made no such claim and apologize.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Continental operates airplanes. Continental operates checkin counters. Continental operates lounges (which are AIRSIDE). They definitely have nothing to do with the food court.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally forgot about the threaten and extort maneuver. Is this guy litigating in pro per?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and it never involved a lawsuit or the threat of one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re twisting my words counselor. I never said I didn’t believe in laws or lawsuits. I do believe there are good reasons why your profession is ranked #4 as least trusted. And I do think you have too much time on your hands. Aren’t there some ambulances that need chasing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, that’s not an issue which can be resolved on a 12(b)(6) motion or any other motion at the pleadings stage.</p>
<p>Second, the entity named in the demand letter is “Continental Airlines Facilities Dispatch.” I have no idea what this entity actually does, but I doubt that it operates airplanes as you claim. Do you have any evidence at all to back up your claim? Do you understand that you can’t just walk into court; say “Your Honor I assure you my client should not be held liable”; and expect the judge to say “ok then, case dismissed.”</p>
<p>Last, it seems that the restaurant in question (or someone else) pointed the finger at CAFD. I have no problem believing this happened because that’s human nature. If you are a Plaintiff and there are 3 possible defendants all pointing the finger at eachother, and you can’t rule out any of them as potentially responsible, what exactly are you supposed to do?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you threaten anything at all?</p>
<p>And please answer my question:</p>
<p>So you always blamed yourself for every (commercial) lie told to you and every (commercial) broken promise made to you?</p>
<p>It’s a simple yes or no question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In essence you implied that lawsuits were irrelevant to the success of America as a country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kindly refrain from personal attacks or insults.</p>
<p>I don’t wish to go back and forth with you. I don’t have the time or inclination and I’m not on trial. Your lines of questioning are leading, your assumptions incorrect, and your logic faulty. </p>
<p>As far as personal attacks, if the shoe fits…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, i.e. my questions expose the silliness of your position but you prefer not to admit it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:shrug: I’m interested in discussing the merits, not swapping insults. If you continue, I will probably assume it’s because you are unable to come up with a decent argument so you must resort to personal attacks.</p>
<p>From post [#189](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064170157-post189.html]#189[/url]:”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064170157-post189.html):</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I found a few different pieces of the original study. Here’s how it worked. (1)</p>
<p>Methods:
The authors had access to 30,195 sets of medical records from New York State in 1984.</p>
<p>First, “a group of specially trained nurses and medical records administrators” identified adverse events (“records for at least one of 18 events signaling adverse incidents”). In other words, they found all the situations where something went wrong for the patients. </p>
<p>“In the second stage, [those] medical records … were referred to two physicians who evaluated, independently, the cause of a patient’s injury and whether there had been negligence in that case. Negligence was considered to have occurred if the medical care that caused the adverse event was below the expected level of performance of the average practitioner who treated such problems. … when the two physicians disagreed on the existence or the nature of an adverse event, the conflict was resolved by a supervising physician.”</p>
<p>Afterwards, they went through and figured out which of those hospitalizations had subsequently resulted in medical malpractice claims.</p>
<p>Results:
The study found:
1133 adverse events
280 of which were caused by negligence
47 of these resulted in filed malpractice claims</p>
<p>“Ninety-eight per cent . . . of all adverse events due to negligence did not result in malpractice claims.”</p>
<p>“Of the 280 patients who had adverse events caused by medical negligence as defined by the study protocol, 8 filed malpractice claims” – 1.53%. </p>
<p>“By contrast, our estimate of the statewide ratio of adverse events caused by negligence (27,179) to malpractice claims (3570) is 7.6 to 1. This relative frequency overstates the chances that a negligent adverse event will produce a claim, however, because most of the events for which claims were made in the sample did not meet our definition of adverse events due to negligence.”</p>
<p>Conclusion
“Medical-malpractice litigation infrequently compensates patients injured by medical negligence and rarely identifies, and holds providers accountable for, substandard care.”</p>
<hr>
<p>Filling in the math a little bit, and you can get [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064170059-post188.html]Hellinger”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064170059-post188.html]Hellinger</a> and Encinosa’s estimate.<a href=“2”>/url</a> If 8 of the 47 lawsuits actually met the study’s criteria for “adverse events due to negligence” – the classic duty/breach/harm criteria for medical malpractice – then that comes out to 17%.</p>
<hr>
<p>I recently stumbled onto a book passage which similarly described the studies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(Brennan, an MD/JD, was one of the authors of the Localio study, (1).)</p>
<hr>
<p>Citations:</p>
<p>(1) A. Russell Localio et al., Relation Between Malpractice Claims and Adverse Events Due to Negligence, 325 NEW ENG. J. MED. 245 (1991).</p>
<p>(2) Fred J. Hellinger and William E. Encinosa, The Impact of State Laws Limiting Malpractice Damage Awards on Health Care Expenditures, 96 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1375 (2006).</p>
<p>(3) ATUL GAWANDE, COMPLICATIONS, 57 (2002).</p>