Bill, I just want to know one more thing, if you please.
You began with the idea that the loser of any suit should pay the costs of the suit.
In your most recent post you say the same thing.
In betwee, several people have pointed out objections to your idea. Several people have offered reasonable, rational, and (gasp!) logical problems with it.
Have you listened to them at all? Or is your mind so set on your idea that you’ve simply not bothered to try to understand the objections that have been raised?
Yes, I have read them but do not agree. Because honestly you and others don’t get what a problem lawsuit abuse is. And I hope none of y’all ever open up a business because you will get sued. If you do everything perfect, you will get sued. And alot of the cases are frivolous. Which keeps the good cases from going to court. BTW do y’all concur on that point or not?
The way the law is now who does it help the most? I’ll tell you who the plaintiff attorneys that’s who. They just use the poor as an excuse to keep the law the way it is so they can keep on sueing and getting filthy rich off of settlements.
And y’all keep saying it is me me me the reason I keep getting sued. It is not. All my friends in business are having the same problem. I and them, of course, use attorneys to keep us from getting sued does it help. NO! They still sue because it is so cheap for them to do it and it is so expensive for us to defend. They know this. IT IS A LEGALIZED SCAM SET UP BY THE TRIAL LAWYERS that are politicians or paying off polititians to keep the law the way it is. And it raping small business owners and if that is fair to you, there is something wrong with you not me.
Everybody keeps bringing up the big corporations out spending the little guy. Which I could see being a problem. See, I am not that bull headed I will give y’all that that is a good argument. Tell ya what, I’ll make this consession. How about loser pays if the company being sued has under 50 employees. A company that size can’t afford to drag out a plaintiff case forever like the big corporations can. So how’s that would you agree with my proposal then?
You keep saying “alot of cases are frivolous” care to back that up with numbers? You seem to be basing your statement on your own personal experience plus that of your friends.
I’d suggest to you that in each of your cases, the person suing you and your friends thought their case had a lot of merit.
You also seem to think that “mom and pop” businesses should in some sense be shielded from lawsuits since it’d put them out of business. Why should they not be held to the same degree of accountability?
Near my home town there was a mom and pop convenience store. They got robbed, the single mom who was working there was murdered. The kids went to the store owners asking for help with the funeral expenses. Mom and Pop told 'em to get lost. Seems that Mom and Pop had not bothered with workers comp or any other kind of insurance. They probably looked upon that suit as “frivolous”, too.
It seems that what you want is a “don’t sue Wild Bill or his friends 'cause they’re only trying to make an honest buck and they can’t 'cause those unethical lawyers bleed us dry”.
My point is: folks who are sued often think the claim against them is frivolous. This don’t make it so.
You ask me to keep an open mind but yours seems to be closed tight. Where did I say that small business should be excluded from liability or workers claims? I didn’t. What I said is that the “loser” of the case should pay for the cost of the attorneys and court cost when it goes to trial.
How is it fair that a small business person that gets sued. Wins the case and then has to pay for his lawyer to defend him. Of course you never think about the business owners time he had to take away from running his business due to the bogus loser’s claim. I mean he (the small business owner) won the case the jury found the plaintiff’s case wrong.
Do you understand that wring? The jury found for the defendent. Got it? Why should he have to pay his attorney because if he would have lost he would have to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys bill. Do you really not get the problem here. I don’t think I can make this any more plain. Or are you arguing just to be arguing? Or do you some how make meney off this crappy system we have now so you don’t want it to be fair? Please tell me I am curious?
And we’ve collectively pointed out the problems with that stance. Now who’s being closed minded here?
you keep claiming that “most cases are frivolous”, keep avoiding prooving it.
As a small business operator, I spend scads of $$ for insurance, (about 5% of our operating budget). I think of it as part of doing business. Everytime I have to hire a new person to work for me, it takes several days worth of effort. Part of doing business. In 25 years of business, we’ve faced court cases a couple of times. Mostly over wrongful termination type claims (similar to yours). In one case, we ended up paying worker’s comp claim on the guy, I believe 'cause the director at the time simply fired the man without consulting anyone on how to do it.
Another time, we’d consulted with an attorney from the point where we suspected we may have to let some one go until after the entire case was settled. We paid a lawyer’s fee on that. Felt it was money well spent. The guy didn’t end up suing. Yes, we spent $$ to protect ourselves from a potential threat (much like we spend $$ for alarm and insurance), and lost days of productive work on the issue.
IT’S PART OF DOING BUSINESS.
**
yes, I got it the first several times you posted it. Try this one: Person is arrested and charged with a crime. They don’t qualify for a public defender. They go to trial and are found innocent. They still have to pay for their attorney. Now, do you really want the state hampered by having to pay for the defense attorney? what if the guy was named OJ??? Get it now?
**
arguing to be arguing? no, I’m trying to get you to see that other people here have shown you valid reasons that your plan would not be fair.
the “do (I) somehow make $ etc.” no. why are you trying to make this personal? have I been rude to you?
I am sorry if I came off that way. I did not mean to. This issue however is very personal to me. But you still didn’t say if you liked my idea or not. And I am talking about civil lawsuits not criminal. So now what do you say? Is my idea reasonable or not.
You being a business owner should totally relate to what I am saying. Look at it this way. The plaintiff has everything to gain by going to court. They can be awarded big money stupid money if the jury is stupid enough. But the defendent on the other hand gets nada by going to court only to say he was right oh boy. But to do that he has to 40 to 50k on his lawyer that is just not fair. He should at least be reimbursed for his legal expenses. You see what I am saying?
And andros,
What you said was laughable. Just who do you think most politicians are? And who has one of the biggest lobbying groups that’s right the trial lawyers. Anyway I got to go. Andros what do you think of my idea about loser pays with companies under 50 employees?
Anyway got to run I’ll type to your answers tomorrow. Once again wring I truly did not mean to make it personal with you.
Ok, Bill, whatever. I suppose the Trilateral Commission are plotting with the Masons and the Illuminated Plaintiff Attorneys to run the world.
You’re right.
You’re right that all lawyers are deliberately evil scum and should die. You’re right that your solution will make the world a happy place. You’re right that all lawsuits are frivolous and that everyone who seeks recompense for perceived injury, fiscal or otherwise, is just a stupid whiner out to make a quick buck. You’re right that every small business owner gets sued constantly. You’re right that all juries consist of idiots.
You’re right.
I’m out.
-andros-
3124
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
WB: *Look at it this way. The plaintiff has everything to gain by going to court. They can be awarded big money stupid money if the jury is stupid enough. But the defendent on the other hand gets nada by going to court only to say he was right oh boy. But to do that he has to 40 to 50k on his lawyer that is just not fair. He should at least be reimbursed for his legal expenses. You see what I am saying? **
Bill, yes, we see what you are saying! We’ve seen it for a while! You are saying that it’s unfair that someone should have to pay legal fees when the court found they didn’t do anything wrong! You don’t like this because it’s unfair! You know what? THE REST OF US AGREE WITH YOU! YES! IT’S NOT FAIR THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY WHEN THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG!!
Where we disagree—and try to stay with me here—is in believing that this admittedly unfair system is actually better than the alternative you propose. Okay? It’s not that we don’t understand your point, it’s just that we think there are overriding objections to it. In particular, it would discourage people with legitimate grievances from bringing suit against an entity with deeper pockets, for fear that the court might find for their opponent and the resulting costs would cripple them. We think that this would unfairly deter people with legitimate grievances, who do not find it as easy to get crusading pro bono lawyers as you seem to suppose.
Those of us who disagree with your proposal here think that that unfairness would be worse than the unfairness in the current system. Okay? Is that so hard to understand? Golly! Have you considered the possibility that people are really suing you out of sheer frustration at your obstinacy? Dang, I’m starting to want to sue you myself, and I don’t even know you.
Well, hey, if I can’t leap to an unjustified conclusion from a few sound-bites, what fun is it?
But seriously, folks, I don’t have any stats to back up my claim. In fact, I’d like some. Maybe it’d be easier for me to sleep at night if I knew how bad the average scenario is rather than just how bad the worst-case scenario is.
I for one (maybe the only one) agree with Bill…at least in regard to having a different criteria for the smaller business (50(?)employees or less). Free market hijack coming I think Bill is making a valid point that if attorneys are held accountable/responsible, they will look very closely before bringing suit, the nuisense suits will disappear. If there is a valid case of point for the plaintiff, the attorney will jump on the case in a heartbeat, if he’s any good anyway.
There are more people employed by small business in this country than the large corps. The added weight of frivilous
litigation along with the tremendous load all the government regs make it even more difficult for the SB owner to keep the doors swinging. Bill may be a little wild (little?) but his last position is IMHO a better solution and levels the playing field in a fair manner.
I think most Americans would agree the country has a major problem with overlawyering and litigating.
OTOH, I believe in most European countries the loser does pay reasonable attorney’s fees for the other side and court costs. The judges probably have some leeway in deciding this.
Everybody here seems to assume the plaintiff is the poor guy suing a rich corporation but it can be the other way around. A rich plaintiff can sue a poor schmuck and bankrupt him by making him spend all his money defending himself.
The poor, of course, already have the great advantage that they can go around doing all sorts of damages knowing they are unsuable because they have no assets. I think we all know too many cases like this.
I do not have any perfect solution but…
I do not think it is fair that I can be minding my own business and someone can sue me and bankrupt me by making me spend all my money defending myself. So, once I have been found not liable in any way I do not think I should pay for the cost of defending myself.
Who should pay? I don’t know. maybe the plaintiff but if you do not think the plaintiff (who brought a suit that was finally found to be without merit) should pay, I cannot see why the defendant who showed he had done nothing wrong should pay.
If society feels anyone should be able to sue even if he ultimately does not have a case, then maybe society should pay for the expense of defending the party who turned out to be right. Maybe a fund to reimburse hose expenses?
Damn those sneaky poor folk, anyhow! Well, there’s your solution, simply make all poor people rich, then they will have something to sue for and therefore not bring frivolous cases.
Wild Bill, Phil 15, Sailor, you keep thinking from simply the “I got sued” side.
Try this:
You have been wronged by some one, and in the process suffered some damage. You think you’ve got a case, bring it to court, and you loose. Under these plans, now, because you lost, in addition to suffering the original wrong, the original damages, your attorney’s costs, you now have to pay the guy who beat you in court? Remember, you really believe that you were harmed, that you had a good case. Since NO ONE can guarentee how any individual case will turn out in court, can’t you see what a chillling effect this would be to bringing ANY suit, including legitimate ones?
It does not strike me as impossible for a business, large or small, to make part of its business plan an estimate of the cost of protecting itself against excessive litigation costs. Purchase appropriate insurance, consult with attorneys before acting (certainly in personnel matters), invest in capital improvements, etc. And that can be budgeted as an element of the cost of doing business. This includes settling/defending against nusiance lawsuits. And if that element is too high for you to make an acceptable profit, then you can decide not to continue in that particular industry.
I also believe it is an increasing trend for courts to require non-binding arbitration, or some other dispute resolution process, as a mandatory precursor to getting into court. That allows the parties to size up the merits of their case without incurring the expenses of a full blown trial.
Finally, there is the adage that the only cases that go to verdict are those in which one of the parties grossly misassessed the merits of his position.
That was a really well written post. Thanks. While I don’t agree it was very well thought well written post. Probably one of the best ones for the plaintiff side yet. You would probably be a good lawyer so please don’t sue me.
Phil and Sailor, Thanks guys for seeing my point I thought I had totally lost my mind. Ya’ll got my point that if a plaintiff attorneys thought the case was good enough, they would take if not it was not good. Believe plaintiff attorneys can smell money from a mile a way.
Wring,
You still don’t get it. My proposed plan does not punish the poor if anyone it punishes the plaintiff attorneys. You know the people that “make” money by sueing people in the first place. The people that disagree with me think it should be the defendents that should consider bogus lawsuits as a cost of doing business. I on the otherhand think it should be a cost of doing business for the plaintiff attorneys. After they don’t produce nothing. The small business as Phil and Sailor said are the people that are being the productive members of society that are putting other people to work not the parasites. So I say let the parasites that eat from the court system eat the cost of sueing and losing not the productive members of society that didn’t do anything wrong in the first. Remember the jury found for the defendents.
Another point people seem to be forgetting - there are laws in place that help to prevent frivolous lawsuits. If a judge hears a pre-trial deposition that has no merit, he throws it out.
I, too, still want to see Wildest Bill’s factual statistics regarding lawsuits in this country, rather than hearing his dramaticized recreations of his own suits.
Esprix(made sure I got his name right this time before I typed it this time),
I always heard experience is the best teacher have you not heard the same? I have been in the sued in the court system many times have you? How do you know “you” are right and “I” am wrong from what basis do you get “your” facts?
Let’s say we were having argument about war. Who would know more you reading about war or me being in a war? See what I am saying?
So I am going to turn what you said to me around on you. What are “your” qualifications for being credible in this thread debate?
You keep saying “remember the jury found for the defendents” but, in the start of your thread, you state “a jury of flakes. That’s right flakes. That is usually what you get on a jury is flakes. How does the old joke go you are being “judged” by 12 people that were not smart enough to get out of jury duty”
So, which is it Bill? 12 flakes who can’t be trusted to see that you’re right, or 12 wise people who know a frivolous case when they see it?
See. there’s two sides.
And, in your latest version (remember at first, you were exactly saying that the person bringing the suit should pay, “PERIOD”), now you say the loosing attorney should pay.
Why, then, would ANY attorney take ANY case to court EVER? Even if they really believe their cause is righteous, their evidence is strong, things can happen. A witness could die suddenly, papers get lost, the other side may have better attorneys. Stuff can happen. Sometimes it’s a close call. No one can EVER predict what will happen in court. No one.
You say you’re in advertising. OK. how about this. Your client comes to you looking for an advertising plan to increase their sales. You produce it. BUT - instead of the expected results, the sales decline! Now, in the same sort of scenario, not only would you NOT get paid for your work, BUT you would be held liable for the decline in sales to your customer. “but wait” you say, "it wasn’t my fault! they had a lousy product! and sales of all those products went down! and there was a nude cheerleading contest going on during the time his commercials were running, so nobody caught the commercials, IT’S NOT MY FAULT!! "
and, lets face it, you probably ALWAYS expect to get paid for your work, even if the expected results don’t happen. An attorney who’s taking on a case in these circumstance will only get paid if there’s a success.
I ** am ** more sympathetic to the small business person than most folks. In addition to running one myself, my father ran one from 1940’s to 1990’s. My current SO runs his own business. At least 5 close friends have run their own business. I still do NOT want to see the changes you propose.
Don’t assume that since I disagree with you that it’s 'cause I simply don’t understand your point.
Only for the sake of Gaudere, who I love and respect, do I refrain from bludgeoning you.
Experience is a wonderful teacher. But since you claim to be speaking for all small business owners who have been sued, and since you are not all business owners, then it seems you are the one claiming to be right. But, since you have cited no factual data to support your suppositions regarding all small business owners, then it is hard for us to accept that you are an expert on the matter; therefore, we can only assume you are extrapolating your own personal experiences (which is, I might add, 8 lawsuits out of the hundreds of thousands that have been litigated over the past ten years, which is hardly an accurate random sampling), and this does not make for good debate fodder.
Further, if you would read carefully, I have never once claimed you were wrong, nor have I claimed to be any kind of expert on the subject, nor have I ever quoted any factual data. I have merely questioned your suppositions, based on my above synopsis, asked you to provide more evidence for your highly dubious stance, and you have retaliated with your charming ad hominem attacks, all the while still providing nothing to back up your various claims.
So, either cite some factual data regarding plaintiff lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and/or the plight of small business owners in the country or shut the hell up.
Your experiences in said war would be quite illuminating about the plight of one soldier’s experiences during wartime. I would not, however, expect you to leap to the conclusion that you therefore know everything about battle strategies, air forces, ICBM’s and what General Powell had for breakfast.
I never claimed to be “credible,” but you have consistently - I’ve only been questioning exactly how credible you actually are. Back up your claims with facts or concede the debate.
I am not a small business owner, although I did run a real estate office in the distant past. My parents do own a 4 person mom & pop craft shop. The purpose of the current system IMHO was to level the playing field for the persons without means who had been wronged by the lofty oppressors who had means. Unfortunately, again IMHO, there are circumstances in play today that have skewed the balance totally in favor of the plantiff and the plantiff’s attorney. The cicumstances are:
[ul]
[li]People who refuse to take responsibility for the outcomes of their own choices and actions and seek redress thru the courts. (i.e. I stick a screwdriver in my eye…sue craftsman; I didn’t show up for work consistantly cuz my arthritis was acting up, but they fired me because of my age…sue the bastards!)[/li][li]There are no real checks and balances preventing harassment lawsuits. The only thing the plantiff’s side stands to lose is the time of the attorney and the plantiff in court and preparation…and they have tremendous opportunity to gain even if there are little or no grounds for their complaint.[/li][li]The corporate attorney of a large manufacturer of recreational vehicles told me that they were constantly barraged with suits that stemmed from people using their equipment while drinking yet it was the fault of the equipment that was responsible for their misfortune. It was cheaper to settle for 5 - 8 grand than to fight them and win. This large corp is set up to handle that…most small businesses are not.[/li][li]Many attorney friends, including my brother, have attested to the above scenerio. Its good business to take a groundless suit because there is a great chance the defendant will “belly up” with some kind of a settlement making the investment of time worthwhile.[/li][/ul]
I like Bill’s proposal of a different criteria for smaller businesses that have limited means in protecting themselves from the circling sharks. 25 or 50 employees or less and the losing attorney is responsible for court costs and the resonable attorney fees of the defendant.
This still allows the “poor” the ability to make his case to an attorney (most do not charge for an intial consultation in DI cases) and if the case actually has merit, the attorney will certainly carry forward. If not, the plaintiff has the opportunity to consult with another attorney who may favor the case. This would level the playing field IMHO. Condsidering the attitude in the legal community regarding tort reform however, it will be a cold day in Hades before anything different occurs.
