The English rule.
And this is a non-crazy proposal, so we can have a civil conversation about it.
I disagree that it is a better system, in that it does have a chilling effect on the filing of meritorious claims. True, it might lead to a greater number of settlements out of court, but I am not convinced those are any more fair as a rule. In fact, I would say the threat of these million-dollar lawsuits encourages companies to settle in better faith than the alternative, where they have a clear advantage. It is a balancing act that works.
How does the English Rule save us from what might be an outlandish initial verdict? And who has better resources to draw out the process with appeals, the individual or the corporation?
And the English Rule works well when we are only discussing compensatory damages; what about punitive? If you are against punitive damages, do you have a better method for discouraging corporate practice that is harmful and regularly results in compensatory damages, but might be deemed outweighed by profits by the ownership?
The English Rule would let the well-heeled buy the verdict they want just like Citizens United lets them buy elections. Fuck over the poor is Republican orthodoxy.
BobLibDem, the English Rule doesn’t allow you to “buy a verdict”. It prevents a verdict from being entered in the first place by chilling the filing of suits.
I am not opposed to its adoption in principle, but in practice it would affect only the middle class. The poor are judgment proof and no prevailing defendant will ever recover their fees anyway, and the rich can afford to lose.
Sure it does. You get injured by a defect in a car. Before you sue, the lawyer is going to tell you that if you don’t win, you not only have to pay his fee but that of the company. The company has deep pockets and will gladly spend millions on a defense if they know you will be paying them back if you lose. So who do you think is going to win, the storefront lawyer on a shoestring budget or the high priced guys that the company is going to hire? Too many people will throw up their hands and walk away rather than sue, if they think they’ll be bankrupted by a lost suit.
Reading for comprehension is awesome!
At the risk of a dismissive answer, I would point out that the English Rule is followed not only by the English, but by the vast majority of the western world. The parade of horribles you invoke doesn’t seem to be evident as a result.
We sure can!
Um…
That is a fair point. I can only point out that the Rule is itself one piece of public policy and procedure. Could it be that other societies deal with different regulatory schemes in which the English Rule makes sense in context? I think it was mentioned earlier that lack of free public health care might also impact how the American tort system has evolved.
Not even worthy of a “nice try.” While there’s some intersection with torts and health care, there’s a huge chunk of tort litigation that doesn’t remotely impact health care or its costs. And that says nothing about actions that sound in contract.
If you want to make the case that the “American Rule,” is justified by lack of free health care, you’re going to need a lot more evidence.
I don’t think you understand the English Rule. It means the winning party’s fees are paid by the losing party at the conclusion of the litigation. That means a winning plaintiff not only gets his damages but his attorney’s fees and costs on top of that, whereas under the American system the plaintiff’s attorney is paid from the client’s award in personal injury cases. The English rule actually benefits plaintiffs with meritorious claims. It hurts those with losing claims, of course. But plaintiffs’ products liability attorneys are among the highest earning in the country.
I wasn’t hanging my hat on it. I was using it as an already mentioned example; my initial thoughts were that other countries have different regulatory regimes generally which mitigate the bad effects that might otherwise occur if you dropped the English Rule whole into the American system.
If you think that’s a crazy idea, not much I can do. My concerns still stand about the chilling effect on claims generally and the imbalance of power between corporate entities and individuals without the possibility of judgments that make avoiding such lawsuits attractive to the corporation.
Saying it does work elsewhere (not in dispute) does not tell me why or how it works elsewhere, and what it might take for it to work here. And since you are the one pushing reform, why should we do the legwork for you?
I might add that friend Bricker might support adoption of the English rule for political benefit, since the plaintiffs’ bar is among the Democratic Party’s largest sources of donations.
I believe that’s what I understand. If I want to sue Honda, and I lose, I have to pay Honda’s lawyers, which would be several orders of magnitude more than my lifetime earnings. So why take a chance on being bankrupted by trying to sue? Of course if I won, then Honda would pay my lawyer but that’s small potatoes. The big corporations would just tell John Q Public “Want to sue me? Go right ahead. I’ll spend a million on defense and you can pay for it when you lose”.
That’s not how it works. Honda can’t just run up its legal bills by hiring a zillion attorneys and then force you to pay all of them. The rule provides that the prevailing party gets a reasonable fee. To put that in simpler terms, if your attorney put 100 hours into the case, and Honda’s lawyers put in 5,000, their fee will be based on a number much closer to 100 hours than 5000.
That’s fair – I am advocating change; I bear the burden of persuasion.
But the “why” is not shrouded in mystery, nor does it require an in-depth examination of the social policies of the rest of western society. It works in those places because it would work just fine here: meritorious claims would continue; extortionate practices would cease.
Right now, companies accept as the cost of doing business the legal expenses that come with defending themselves against baseless suits.
That works, too.
But I entered this thread replying to post #20, which implied that frivolous lawsuits are simply dismissed. I’m pointing out that this is not the truth.
If it was such that the loser was limited to pay the winner’s fees an amount no greater than the loser spent on his, I could go along. If I spend $1000 to sue Honda, then the most I would have to pay them would be $1000.
What are you not pitting?
Gevalt. The problem with the Keystone Pipeline is not popular opinion; it’s science and social responsibility. It’s not going to be urbanites far away (“popular opinion”) who suffer when the damn pipe inevitably breaks. It’s going to be the farmers and smaller towns in the Great Plains who suffer.
And the Great Plains don’t need to be polluted for the sake of oil transport from Canada. Kansas has one of the best wind corridors in the world. They can be an energy producer, not just “pipe-through” country.
As for feminist rabble-rousing, yes, some feminists exaggerate numbers. But you don’t know what the real numbers are any more than I do, or they do. It’s a bit hard to get highly accurate sexual assault statistics.
Yes. That’s how this sort of rhetoric works.
Except that I am actually appealing to something beyond what R.E. at the country club told me, or what I’m told by a professional “campaign manager” I have to say to make money.
And this *tu quoque *does not invalidate anything I said in the OP.