Bill Targeting Frivolous Lawsuits Advances in the House -- 09/09/2004
This Bill sounds dodgy, but I like the idea of reform. Unfortuantely, IMO, it is the kind of thing that the Republicans usually screw up.
By that, I mean that I mean that people who are more sensitive to the rights of an individual (usually Democrats) would tend to write laws that protect the rights of the indivual as guaranteed by the bill of rights and the consitution.
Lawmakers who aren't immediately focused on the rights of the individual tend to write laws that have more loopholes (whether on purpose or not, I won't say) and are more likely to be abused and eventually overturned as unconstitutional.
Trial Lawyers, are of course, up in arms over this bill. They point out several good points as well as several loaded arguements in an effort to make their point.
For example, to me, it would appear this modifcation seems designed to make examples out of lawyers and would likely be abused---it will probably be successfully challenged.
SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY.
Rule 11(1)(C) in paragraph (2), by striking `shall be limited to what is sufficient' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph (including subparagraphs (A) and (B)) and inserting `shall be sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated, and to compensate the parties that were injured by such conduct. The sanction may consist of an order to pay to the party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper that is the subject of the violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.';...
Ultimately, I think lawsuit restrictions and controls are needed, but I would set these limits in another way. I think the amount of money an individual can receive should be capped, but their ability to sue should not be infringed upon. I think anything over a certain amount should be redirected to the government as fines---say to fund social security or medical care. That way if you are a corporation that does wickedly irresponsible and damaging things, I can sue you for an appropriate amount for gross negligence, but if I am seeking to sue your business just as a money grab, there are limits in place that might have both my lawyer and myself questioning the value of a lawsuit.
Why not cap recieveables for injuries at a certain amount? Or perhaps X dollars + all medical bills. The idea of someone becoming a multi-millionaire because they spilled a fast food resturant's coffee in their lap is just asinine.
I think most people support tort reform, but this bill seems too open to being abused. An individual may actually have a difficult time finding a good lawyer to bring a lawsuit against a large corporation. That ultimately appears be the point of this legislation.
By that, I mean that I mean that people who are more sensitive to the rights of an individual (usually Democrats) would tend to write laws that protect the rights of the indivual as guaranteed by the bill of rights and the consitution.
Lawmakers who aren't immediately focused on the rights of the individual tend to write laws that have more loopholes (whether on purpose or not, I won't say) and are more likely to be abused and eventually overturned as unconstitutional.
Trial Lawyers, are of course, up in arms over this bill. They point out several good points as well as several loaded arguements in an effort to make their point.
For example, to me, it would appear this modifcation seems designed to make examples out of lawyers and would likely be abused---it will probably be successfully challenged.
SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY.
Rule 11(1)(C) in paragraph (2), by striking `shall be limited to what is sufficient' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph (including subparagraphs (A) and (B)) and inserting `shall be sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated, and to compensate the parties that were injured by such conduct. The sanction may consist of an order to pay to the party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper that is the subject of the violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.';...
Ultimately, I think lawsuit restrictions and controls are needed, but I would set these limits in another way. I think the amount of money an individual can receive should be capped, but their ability to sue should not be infringed upon. I think anything over a certain amount should be redirected to the government as fines---say to fund social security or medical care. That way if you are a corporation that does wickedly irresponsible and damaging things, I can sue you for an appropriate amount for gross negligence, but if I am seeking to sue your business just as a money grab, there are limits in place that might have both my lawyer and myself questioning the value of a lawsuit.
Why not cap recieveables for injuries at a certain amount? Or perhaps X dollars + all medical bills. The idea of someone becoming a multi-millionaire because they spilled a fast food resturant's coffee in their lap is just asinine.
I think most people support tort reform, but this bill seems too open to being abused. An individual may actually have a difficult time finding a good lawyer to bring a lawsuit against a large corporation. That ultimately appears be the point of this legislation.
posted by The Tobidian at 7:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home