The left is coming along just fine, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to write the right one off entirely. DAMN YOU! 
THAT ARE BEING ABUSED TO KILL PEOPLE.
I find the law fairly just - it seems a general law and may be used effectively to prevent people from abusing the law system to force companies into bankruptcy. However much I am against guns, the general abuse of liability claims in the U.S. is sickening.
But the companies aren’t being sued out of business for making a legal high quality product, but a LETHAL high quality product. They currently have every right to make them though, so it is up to the government to do something about them, not up to private individuals through means of high legal fees.
But you have to be out of this world to say that they are being sued for making a legal, high quality product. :rolleyes:
It is clear from other countries where gun-abuse has been successfully reduced, that legislation is the way to go. It shouldn’t be necessary to fight evil with evil.
Well in all fairnes to the gun, it has a lot of help (say, 99.9%+ of the help) from a human being.
For the most part, they truly are. No firearm should discharge unless the safety’s off and you pull the trigger; IIRC, Remington had a rifle a few years ago that discharged whenever you set the safety to off. Some injuries resulted (and a very few deaths), and Remington paid for it in civil court. IMO, it is entirely reasonable that they did so, and if such were to happen to Remington again (unlikely), this new law would NOT protect them from material defect.
But suing someone because a firearm discharges when the safety’s off and you pull the trigger?
That’s insanity.
Fine with (most of) us. Going through duly elected legislative representatives to attain more restrictive laws at least has a modicum of respectability and legitimacy; going through civil courts and civil juries has neither.
A quibble: there is nothing wrong with going through civil courts and juries; the legislature is aware that law gets made that way and oftentimes prefers it. Courts are in some respects better equipped to change with the times than is the legislature. It permits the courts to be on the front-lines, and the legislature can look at how the courts have resolved things and clean up the mess if they don’t like it.
Take the proposed legislation, for example: I can guarantee you that almost none of the cases currently pending will be dismissed because of this lawsuit. The plaintiffs will seek (and likely get) permission to replead their claims to get around the bar of the legislation, and it will be left to the courts (relying on the text of the statute and its legislative history) to determine whether Congress intended the cases at the edges to fall one way or the other.
In fairness, we actually are talking about a legal, highly-regulated, high quality (i.e., not defective) product whose sellers and manufacturers are being sued for its criminal misuse. I don’t think it’s “out of this world” to say that that’s what we’re discussing.
Eh. I guess I was a little too general in my declaration; my bad. Point to you.
But in the politically charged climate of firearms (esp. since the previous occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave), I specifically stand by my statement.
Incidentally, Debaser, putting an argument in a bold, large font doesn’t make it more persuasive.
On the whole, I’ve enjoyed reading this debate. Thanks for such a thorough discussion of the legal issues, on both sides!
I remain unconviced that lawsuits from groups bent on harming the industry are provocative enough in themselves to justify the new law, however. To me, it seems like a much broader issue needs to be addressed, and I don’t see that the gun industry itself deserves special protective status in this way as compared to, say, the auto industry.
I don’t think Congress was really thinking through the broader issue, or they would have written the law so that it was more broadly applicable; they were answering the cries of a powerful lobby and very little more. That’s what bothers me.
So, what’s the broader issue, and how does it relate to what we’ve been talking about?
Tort reform. We’ve been discussing it in relation to a specific industry, as opposed to a broader system of across-the-board tort reform.
“Tort Reform” is one huge effin’ “umbrella,” isn’t it?
Would it even be possible to write a tort reform law that had any spine w/o kind of breaking it down a bit by industry? I mean, after all, there are industries and then there are industries, each with their own crazy-quilt of federal and state regulations.
Other than possibly medical malpractice, is there another industry even closely as politically sensitive as the firearms industry that might deserve individual attention?
Well, if I were queen of the world, I’d start tort reform by disincentivizing the trial lawyers. I’d tighten up summary judgment; I’d have all punitive damages awards put into a state fund, instead of going into the plaintiff’s pocket (actually, into the plaintiff’s lawyer’s pocket); and I’d cap damages awards, across the board, regardless of industry.
This would, of course, mean fewer lawsuits. That’s both good and bad, however; some of these groundbreaking lawsuits could not be brought if it weren’t for the fact that there are lawyers out there willing to gamble on the big payout. If you take away the possibility of the payout, lawyers won’t be willing to bring those suits. And I’m not talking about the cases at the margins, either; I’m talking about cases where someone is defenseless and oppressed, and needs a lawyer and a court to make it right. We’ll see more of the poor living in bad conditions, and people working in bad situations, because no one is willing to stand for them.
This troubles me. Not enough to take back my proposal, however (which is only slightly tongue-in-cheek). Of course, I have it on good authority that I am a bad, bad person.
So, in the John Grisham version of your career, you’re one of those lawyers that sits around in a darkened room smoking cigars and making telephone calls to hitmen, assigning them to wipe out the likes of the John Cusacks and Julia Roberts?
With regard to tort reform, as with campaign finance reform, the solution seems to be guided not by what is most principled but what plan is the least of all evils…unless, of course, you’re a character in a Shakespeare play, in which case you just opt to kill all the lawyers. “Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o’er, should undo a man?”
Stranger
Campion, well there’s pay-outs and there’s pay-outs.
Caps (on non-economic damages and as punitive measures) can still be generous enough to motivate lawyers and yet not so extreme as to destroy industries. Having punitive damages go into state funds does not totally destroy incentives. Trial lawyers may well be motivated nearly as well by a pot o silver as one of gold.
I suppose step one is to define what the desired outcomes are.
[ul]
[li]Reducing frivilous suits[/li][li]Preventing lawsits from crippling industries[/li][li]Unclogging the courts[/li][li]Allowing individuals the right to redress for percieved injustices[/li][li]Allowing fair compensation for harm[/li][li]Deterring negligence and catalyzing positive changes[/li][li]Doing all that with the least severe intervention possible to accomplish the goals[/li][/ul]
Pretrial screening, caps on non-economic damages, having punitive awards over some specified amount go into state coffers, the encouragement of alternative means of settling disputes (such as mandatory attempts at arbitration, during which time admissions of fault and apologies can be made but are nonadmissible if the case goes to trial), can all work together to accomplish all those goals in multiple industries. Yes, there are some things that are industry specific. Medicine, for example has great need to have better systems in place to reveal and analyze errors when they occur in transparent ways, so that the system can improve. The current tort system discourages such a process. The gun industry has no comparable need for providing transparent QA. But the meat of the needs of tort reform can be addressed generically.
As a purely theoretical matter, there already are caps on punitive damages, in the form of the due process clause of the Constitution. Punitives that are orders of magnitude greater than the compensatory damages can violate the due process clause. Of course, we’re talking 10 times greater, really, before you can get a court interested. But capping punitives at, say, 3 times compensatories is an interesting thought.
And as for the pot of gold versus pot of silver – there are some lawyers that would interest. Others would find it an insult.
Pre-trial screening, I think, can only work in med cases, and even then, it’s going to require some pretty strict standards. Have you seen this case about silicosis? It is a horrifying example of the system gone badly awry (and kudos to a judge for calling it). Sorry, we disagree on mandatory arbitration – I don’t think it ought to be required.
Maybe we ought to shift to the British rule – loser pays the winner’s attorney’s fees? Right now, there’s little downside to bringing a frivolous suit. Maybe if you had to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees if you lost, you’d think twice.
Ah, it’s all a pipe dream, anyway. I’ll be a monkey’s uncle before there’s tort reform.
Unfortunately, in this case I don’t know how to craft a middle ground that isn’t going to marginalize (or further marginalize) a segment of the population. Right now, the poor can get free legal aid, and the rich can afford it. There’s a crisis of the middle class, however, where they make too much money to get legal aid and not enough to afford to pay. Having a lawyer take you on for a contingent fee may be your only way to vindicate your rights. Any kind of tort reform that limits your ability to get help will either lead to fewer people in the middle enforcing their rights or to more bankruptcies. As much as I may dislike the politicians, I’m glad this is their headache, not mine.
Oh, and for the record? I have never put a hit out on anyone. My boss never lets me go through with it.
Of course not. But at the time, pro-legislation people in the thread were completely ignoring this aspect of the anti-legislation people’s argument. It was stated numerous times in various forms, but we simply being ignored. I honestly wasn’t sure if that was because they didn’t get it in the first place, they disagreed with it as a premise, or they didn’t think it was a problem at all to begin with. But, I wanted to draw attention to it. It’s very rare that I do such a thing. It’s not like I have a habit, or anything!
Yes, but… Well… I really don’t know any other way to say it:
The auto industry isn’t being sued for the misuse of their legal, high quality product. The gun industry is being sued into bankruptcy just for making a legal, high quality product. It’s a special case. It requires special protection. Comparisons like this just don’t hold up.
I’m fine with tort reform. Why does it need to be done by Congress?
They weren’t allowed to create a cause of action in US V. Morrison, and they don’t even have plenary authority over gun laws, US v. Lopez. So where is the enumerated power to support this new federal tort reform?
And see, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=296776&highlight=tort+reform
:sigh:
I wasn’t claiming he did. I was using it for the purposes of illustration. If it bothers you, replace “Bill O’Reilly” with “Ann Coulter” and consider that her claiming her political opponents hold a particular view doesn’t mean they do.
In the Commerce Clause.
EVERYTHING’S in the Commerce Clause, baby!
I like it when you call me baby.
Right on the money. Far too many frivolous lawsuits are being filed by people with an agenda, IMNSHO. Suing a gun manufacturer because someone used one of its products to shoot you is like suing Ford because someone driving a Ford rearended you at a red light.
The entire industry? I doubt that.
This proves what, exactly?
Not really. I don’t automatically assume being sued drives a company out of business. It’s not the obvious result to me.
One cite is a person -not- saying they’re suing in an attempt to drive the business out of business, the other is an accusation that they are. From Glock’s lawyer, no less!
A reasonable person can, and does. Show me someone stating outright that the point of the suit they are bringing is to crater the firearms industry and I’ll believe you, but all I see at the moment are a lot of accusations from those with a vested interest in marginializing their opponents’ views.