Thanks for the update Sublight.
askeptic - Hey, hey, hey, who’s gnashin’? I’m just askin’ for answers here.
A lawsuit is an incredibly long, complicated, tedious process. Just the paperwork to get started can take days. It’s an extreme measure that should never be taken lightly. And there’s no way in hell a dumb case just slips through the cracks…there has to be a judge who carefully reviews all the points and then gives the thumbs-up and (not always, but definitely much of the time) a lawyer for who listen to the plaintiff’s case and gave it lots of careful consideration before deciding that it was actually worth it. Even a lawyer desperate or unscrupulous enough to care only about the bottom line has to see that there is a bottom line.
Even if, upon review, the case isn’t as stupid as it first sounded, it still needs to have sufficient merit. Take, for example, the fugitive who tried to sue a local police department for taking so long to find and arrest him. Was there a case here? As it turns out, yes; he’d been alone and lost in the wilderness for a long time, long enough to pose a real threat to his health, and the police are obligated to make a reasonable effort to find a person they’re looking for. Was this a good case? No; the fugitive was fleeing the police the whole time…that’s how he ended up in the wilderness in the first place…and refused to surrender even when it became clear this wasn’t going to end well for him. Would any lawyer take the case? No.
I apologize if I sounded angry. I’m actually more bewildered than anything when something like this pops up (although it turns out most of us were mistaken here as well), in a “Who the freak let this happen?” kinda way. Believe me, I staunchly believe that anyone should be allowed to propose, plan, or threaten a lawsuit against anyone for anything. But if you’re going to go through with it, you’d better have some real meat.
Re. this case: Well, now. Saw the link, and it turns out that there’s been a fair amount of obfuscation going along. It also turns out that he only filed suit, which means that it hadn’t even been greenlighted yet. (My guess is that his rage over the damage to his car cooled off a bit and it finally sunk in what a horrific fight he was in for.)
Still think the guy was being a bit crass, but defintiely not as evil as he was made to look.
The problem, IMO, is caused by inability to distinguish between the degrees and stages of a lawsuit. The actual suit…plaintiff and defendant sworn in, arguments made in front of a jury, etc…is just the final step. Before that, the court has to accept the case and issue a summons to the defendant. Before that, the defendant needs to be notified of the suit. Before that, the plaintiff’s lawyer (or just the plaintiff, for the truly reckless) needs to make, organize, and present the case to the court. Before that, a lawyer needs to accept the case (or the plaintiff has to muster enough courage to go it alone). Before that, the plaintiff had to decide to go ahead with a lawsuit. And at the very beginning are the threats, warnings, and other assorted bluster immediately following the incident sparking the possible lawsuit. Too often, as was the case here, one of the earlier intermediate steps gets presented as if it were the completed deal, and that’s just irresponsible.
At this point, I’m more interested in how the previous judge decided that he was innocent. That, I’m a little stunned it…even if he wasn’t speeding that badly, isn’t it still at the very least manslaughter?
DKW: I don’t know where you get this stuff about greenlighting a case or a judge reviewing a case before trial. The constitution declares that we have a right to petition for redress of grievances there is no initial review other than possibly a motion for non-suit or summary judgment. A non-suit occurs after a plaintiff has put on their case and before a defendant responds. Summary judgment only deals with facts not law and their can be no facts in dispute. If any facts are disputed then summary judgment may not be granted. Everyone gets to make their case. The only requirement for the issuance of a summons is that you pay the filing fee their is no preliminary review on the merits. Of course this has nothing to do with the price of an Audi in Spain…
DKW: Say I decided to sue you for hitting me with your car. Never mind that we have never been in the same city you have never seen me and you certainly never hit me with a car in fact I have never been hit by any car anywhere. There is still no way for you to stop the lawsuit prior to trial. All I have to do is file it and pay the fee. You either answer or I get a default judgment. At no point prior to trial can anybody throw my case out. That is the way it should be, trials are the method we use for settling disputes. We certainly do not want some kind of gatekeeper telling one person they can sue and another they cannot.