Only in America?

[shropshire 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3643534.stm

So, does this mean that is you get hit by a car, that you (or your surviving family!) can sue Ford..
or

You can sue Cyprus/PD/etc.... if you bounce?

What is the world coming to?.... Discuss

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

So long as manufacturers choose to settle without admission of liability (or rather, their insurers choose to) rather than to win a more costly trial, yes it's a problem.
No caselaw gets established, and it's clear that you can be hit up for a tidy sum on no merits.

We were pretty close to getting federal protection for gun makers against lawsuits for criminal use of firearms, but someone screwed up on procedure and the bill had to be killed.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

So long as manufacturers choose to settle without admission of liability (or rather, their insurers choose to) rather than to win a more costly trial, yes it's a problem.
No caselaw gets established, and it's clear that you can be hit up for a tidy sum on no merits.

We were pretty close to getting federal protection for gun makers against lawsuits for criminal use of firearms, but someone screwed up on procedure and the bill had to be killed.

Singling out one industry (guns) for special protection from frivolous lawsuits is inappropriate. All industries should receive protection from frivolous lawsuits.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Only in America?

Are you kidding, have you seen the number of 'no win no fee' ads for ambulance chasers we have been getting recently?
Gird your loins and take out public liability insurance.
As sure as shit, its coming here too.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[storm1977 0]

It is disgusting IMO .... This Frivolous lawsuit shit needs to end.

Did I see something on the news correctly last night that the makers of the guns used in the DC Sniper case are going to pay a settlement?????
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Why? Because some Nutbag went off the deep end?

So if I beat someone over the head with a rock can they sue EARTH?
WTF is going on here?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"the makers of the guns used in the DC Sniper case are going to pay a settlement?????"
'Fraid so..a world gone mad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3643534.stm

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

This Frivolous lawsuit shit needs to end.

What REALLY needs to stop is the FUCKING JUDGES taking those cases.

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So if I beat someone over the head with a rock can they sue EARTH?
WTF is going on here?

I'm not against rocks. Rocks don't kill people, people kill people with rocks. But would it hurt to have a background check, proper training, and a rock lock before allowing someone to just have a rock? I mean, if we can just save one person, it would be worth it. And really, does anyone really need to own more than 3 rocks? I understand Sean Penn keeps a rock in his car, the hypocrit.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

So if I beat someone over the head with a rock can they sue EARTH?
WTF is going on here?

I'm not against rocks. Rocks don't kill people, people kill people with rocks. But would it hurt to have a background check, proper training, and a rock lock before allowing someone to just have a rock? I mean, if we can just save one person, it would be worth it. And really, does anyone really need to own more than 3 rocks? I understand Sean Penn keeps a rock in his car, the hypocrit.

LOL

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

What REALLY needs to stop is the FUCKING JUDGES taking those cases.

They didn't. This was an out of court settlement. There are some inherent flaws in the US legal system that mean that far too often it's cheaper to simply pay people off than fight the claim. There are also incentives to make unfounded claims without the risk of penalties on the claimant. It's a balancing act and IMHO the pendulum has swung too far in favour of access to justice over there.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

What REALLY needs to stop is the FUCKING JUDGES taking those cases.

They didn't. This was an out of court settlement. There are some inherent flaws in the US legal system that mean that far too often it's cheaper to simply pay people off than fight the claim. There are also incentives to make unfounded claims without the risk of penalties on the claimant. It's a balancing act and IMHO the pendulum has swung too far in favour of access to justice over there.

I don't think he is talking about this specific case. I think he is talking about frivolous suits in general.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

I don't think he is talking about this specific case. I think he is talking about frivolous suits in general.

BINGO!!!

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[shropshire 0]

Of course you're right... hence I asked a question and did not make a statement - on account that we can see the trend here too .. (what ever happens over the pond does tend to make it's way here sooner rather that later, these days - both Good & Bad stuff)

But this 'case' is even more stupid than usual, It's not even the supplier shop that's paying up, it's the manufacture - several steps removed from the end user -- what a dangerous precident to make, me thinks!

I guess that my next question is... what can We do to stop the ambulance chaser mentality becoming so embedded over here ( I hope that the answer is NOT nothing... but I already suspect that it is!)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[PhillyKev 0]

Do what your countryman, William Shakespeare, suggested. Kill all the lawyers.

[shropshire 0]

Te He ... Not a bad place to start!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I guess that my next question is... what can We do to stop the ambulance chaser mentality becoming so embedded over here ( I hope that the answer is NOT nothing... but I already suspect that it is!)

The Courts in the UK are doing a good job of stemming the flow so far. Last year the courts struck a great blow to the ambulance chasers when they almost single handedly shut down The Accident Group.

TAG was responsible for the majority of no-win-no-fee claims in Britain and almost all the advertising you saw at the time. They were essentially playing the system to make vast profits at the expense of both the claimants and the Britain’s insurers (a cost which is passed on to everyone in the form of hiked premiums).

The courts produced a couple of landmark judgements and through a nice technicality cut off TAG’s biggest source of money. Not only that but the judgement was retrospective so in one fell swoop TAG was also suddenly lumbered with such massive debts that they went into administration almost immediately. That sent a loud warning to the rest of the industry that the system will not tolerate ambulance chasers on that kind of scale.

Whilst there are certain checks in place in the UK system that make it far less prone to the kind of abuse you see in the states, the compensation culture is filtering in. On the whole the UK system is far less susceptible to this kind of madness – just through a couple of quirks of the system not present in the US (to greater or lesser degrees).

Rest assured though, it’s being fought against tooth and nail. No one in the industry wants to allow it to run away with itself like it has done elsewhere in the world. It's mostly culture driven as opposed to industry. That and a few shister firms... but the industry as a whole certainly doesn't want the trend. I fucking hate some of the claimants out there... I hate claims farm companies more.

[shropshire 0]

Great reply - thanks..

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Do what your countryman, William Shakespeare, suggested. Kill all the lawyers.

and stop voting them into office (Kerry/Edwards).

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

It is disgusting IMO .... This Frivolous lawsuit shit needs to end.

Did I see something on the news correctly last night that the makers of the guns used in the DC Sniper case are going to pay a settlement?????
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

No, I kid you not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

So long as manufacturers choose to settle without admission of liability (or rather, their insurers choose to) rather than to win a more costly trial, yes it's a problem.
No caselaw gets established, and it's clear that you can be hit up for a tidy sum on no merits.

We were pretty close to getting federal protection for gun makers against lawsuits for criminal use of firearms, but someone screwed up on procedure and the bill had to be killed.

Singling out one industry (guns) for special protection from frivolous lawsuits is inappropriate. All industries should receive protection from frivolous lawsuits.

So we agree that there should be Tort Reform.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Do what your countryman, William Shakespeare, suggested. Kill all the lawyers.

and stop voting them into office (Kerry/Edwards).

Well, maybe you recall that it took a Nixon to go to China...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Singling out one industry (guns) for special protection from frivolous lawsuits is inappropriate. All industries should receive protection from frivolous lawsuits.

You have to start somewhere. It's almost impossible to get an all-encompassing Bill all at once. Political realities require that you start somewhere, and build upon that in future years.

You seem to indicate that you believe the gun-maker protection was the proper thing to do, but then throw the baby out with the bath water, and decline to give them what they deserve. That doesn't make sense.

Aircraft manufacturers already have some special lawsuit protections, which have helped them stay alive and in-business. Are you in favor of cancelling those special protections, just because everyone else doesn't have them too?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Singling out one industry (guns) for special protection from frivolous lawsuits is inappropriate. All industries should receive protection from frivolous lawsuits.

I don't know of any other industry that has its existence threatened by those who admit their cases have no value but to bleed the other side dry. Maybe tobacco.

It's been long established that you can't sue Ford when a drunk driver kills a teenager. Why is Glock or Beretta different?

[billvon 3,120]

>Aircraft manufacturers already have some special lawsuit protections, which
>have helped them stay alive and in-business. Are you in favor of
> cancelling those special protections, just because everyone else doesn't
> have them too?

Yes! Those protections are destroying FBO's and pilots, because they are still suable, and those lawsuits go somewhere. The only fair thing to do is protect ALL industries. Protecting two at the expense of dozens more is not only unfair, but will have the opposite effect of what you intend (i.e. if you protect manufacturers, gun stores will be sued out of existence - and you will be worse off than you were before.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Protecting two at the expense of dozens more is not only unfair, but will have the opposite effect of what you intend (i.e. if you protect manufacturers, gun stores will be sued out of existence - and you will be worse off than you were before.)

Who's going to sue Walmart?