Now I've heard EVERYTHING!!!

Remove all ads!

Regarding the OJ Simpson case, there are different burdens of proof in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case. Surely you aren't suggesting Sprite that you want the standard to be the same? Don't we want it to be harder to put someone in jail? Shouldn't it be more difficult to execute a man than to win some money from him?

Also, you say that we can have an open judicial system without frivolous cases but you don't say how. You talk about capping damages, but that does not prevent baseless claims, that only limits the amount of the potential award, maybe slightly lessening the incentive. Other nations try to prevent cases without merit by having a "loser pays" system. The problem with that is that there are many cases that are difficult to prove and therefore risky but which are still with a great deal of merit. For example, environmental litigation is often this way. Showing causation in an environmental case is incredibly difficult -- you may be able to prove that a company was dumping hazardous material in violation of RCRA but how do you prove that it was the cause of the disproportionately high number of instances of leukemia in a community? That is incredibly difficult to prove, and costs an incredible amount of money to try to prove. Now, if you're talking about a lower middle class neighborhood without that type of money, and you have a loser pays system, it quickly becomes apparent that the case likely won't be tried. Some nations try these cases exclusively by the government (in the U.S. the government would also bring a civil and or criminal case) but why shouldn't the victims have the opportunity to be made whole?

Also, you say that damages should be tied to the harm done. Well, they are. Those are called compensatory damages. The complaint is typically punitive damages which are designed to punish in hopes of creating a disincentive for the type of behavior mentioned above. Take the McDonald's case, there the jury originally awarded 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages (judge reduced it to 480,000) and people cried how unfair the award was. Well, 2.7 million is the amount that McDonalds makes in two days in coffee sales. I think punitive damages are almost always more rational than than people give them credit for. (If you want to debate the McDonald's case please read the linked post above first.)

People keep coming up with one case here as an example, or one case there. I contend that these case represent the overwhelming minority. The facts show that the types of cases being mentioned compose the smallest fraction of the judicial case load, and that only the barest fraction of those cases are the cases being mentioned as being without merit.

Is a system where on the smallest fraction of cases have unacceptable results broken? Is it a travesty of justice as is the implication of some? I contend it is not. Perception is not reality.

This doesn't mean there can't be real and beneficial change. However, before we seek to change a system, shouldn't we really know the truth about it? The saying is: if it ain't broke don't fix it. Well, if it has a flat tire fix the tire don't get the engine a complete overhaul.

[ November 03, 2002, 19:04: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

On the note of extreme measures people go through to prevent lawsuits, there's a notice on the back of my 36" television set. It reads "Not designed for human consumption." i.e. Don't eat it. Did some goofball actually sue them for getting fried after trying to eat the TV, or are they afraid that someone will be stupid enough to?

I know that a few of them involved a guy commiting a crime suing his victim. I seriously want to know how these cases went through. Anyone want to bring a suit against the people that approved these cases for being morons?

I'm make a wager that somebody tries this. A lawsuit against God. I can see the verdict now, "We, the jury, order God to pay this man a dozen virgins to compensate him for your negligence in forgetting to give him inteligence." Please, we shouldn't lower ourselves to stupid suits like that.

 

Laches is right on. We use the law and the courts to solve problems and disputes, and juries give these awards after hearing the facts. The jury may believe or disbelieve even credible evidence, and the defendants in these cases are usually big boys with law firms representing them, too. Which introduces another factor- the plaintiff friendliness of well chosen juries in well chosen venues.

 

Just a quick definition clarification on the difference between criminal and civil cases in terms of burden of proof:

UK law, but probably similar in the US?

Criminal cases: Beyond reasonable doubt. This is pretty straight forward in the sense that should there be any doubt it must favour the defendant, and a guilty verdict should not be reached. Great! So why do we allow majority verdicts? Who knows.

Civil cases: On the balance of probabilities. Thus the proof only has to show that it is reasonable to assume, likely or any such phrase you like, that the defendant is responsible. There can be doubt, it just has to be the most likely scenario. In the UK though, most civil cases other than libel, are not put to a jury. Judges are very much less likely to award the sort of damages that a jury might hand out.

"Innocent till proven guilty" also does not apply, rightly or wrongly. You may in fact have to prove innocence rather than guilt.

Hence you may indeed be found in a civil case to be responsible for something which a criminal case could not prove. Personally I do not agree with this option since it is in effect "double jeopardy".

 

Latches ... I'm curious ... are you related to Stella (the McDonalds lady???) ... or maybe you were on the legal team that defended her???

No offense meant, I've just never encountered someone so into defending that case!

 

Reference the "Stella Award" cases above...

For those of you who believe the American system has gone completely mad, please check out this link.

As Laches has pointed out already in this and other threads, we should indeed be more critical as to what we believe to be "facts" about this and any other subject I suppose.

Sure there are cases with apparently absurd awards, but perhaps less than we think.

 

And one should always be careful about what kind of evidence is required to make a decision.

If all it takes is a few examples of apparently silly court verdicts to declare "nothing will make me change my mind," then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your standards.

I also find the assertion that all of those lawsuits would be laughed out of court in Europe to be ... well, laughable. We've seen several anecdotes of moronic cases of law in Europe. Someone shoot the high horse.

 

Tal,

The link I put in above actually disputes all the cases except one I think, which isn't mentioned.

More to the point though, is that when people quote these sort of cases it would certainly carry more weight if a case name or number could also be quoted.

Now call me ignorant of US law, but I'm certain that court cases there like everywhere else will have case references of names and numbers? I know they do in the UK. Sir Bel?

 

Warning, this page will self destruct in five seconds......provided you tape a live grenade to your monitor, get seriously narked and then hit the screen real hard exactly five seconds from when you started to read this message.

That' what i expect next. Manufacturers covering all angles by telling you what you could do in order for something to go wrong, so that you will know not to do what they say you could do....i've gone cross-eyed.

[ November 05, 2002, 13:52: Message edited by: Intentioner of the Damned ]

 

BS, you only need a good lawyer to smooth the jury.

As for my opinion, using normal everyday people for the jury is a bad idea, most of them have absolutely no XP in justice and other stuff and just choose guilty/not guilty since they´re eaily convincable.

P.S.:
I´m not saying that the Dutch system is better, since a week ago, a thief sued the people that arrested him.

[ November 05, 2002, 16:54: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

My new oven came with all of the following warnings:

- Do not allow your children to play in the oven
- Do not strike the glass surfaces with hard objects such as pots or toys
- Do not leave the oven door open to heat your home
- Do not stand on the open oven door or use it as a step stool

There was the *best* article about this kind of insanity in Dave Barry's "recent articles" archives but unfortunately it's no longer there so I can't post a link. Basically it concluded that for safety purposes all appliances should be sold with a small lawyer strapped to the lid.

 

I´m now thinking what kind of idiots forced the manufacturer to put these warnings on the oven (especially the one about the children gets me scared)

 

This is the World we live in and we created it.

 

I just want to add that our new oven also came complete with an "anti-tipping" device (a heavy steel bracket that you affix to the front of the oven like a giant foot). And the warnings about tipping appear on about every second page of the owners manual. Yes, people are stupid I'm just waiting to see the ads on TV from the lobby group that promotes safe, non-tipping ovens (MATO - mothers against tipping ovens)

 

I *really* wonder what excellent warnings might come with a hand gun in the US?

Always point away from body.
Do not clean out the barrel of a loaded gun with your finger.
If fired at a person it could seriously damage their health.

 

I'll be sure to post them when I buy one. Next week, I expect.

 

Here's a good one, an article from the current issue of Macleans, the sort of Canadian equivalent of Newsweek:

"Hockey parents are back in the news, clogging the courts with rink rage. Across the country, suits have been filed over kids not getting enough ice time or being cut from teams. And now, Michael Croteau of Lameque Island, NB, is suing the minor provincial hockey association and its Triple-A bantam league, demanding that they overturn a vote by the league's nine head coaches that gave the most-valuable player prize to someone other than his son, Steven. Croteau is asking for $300,000 in psychological and punitive damages for Steven, who he insists is a more deserving MVP because he scored more points than the boy who won."