At 06:15 AM 7/13/02, Tom Beck wrote:
><< I am not familiar with what is considered "reasonable compensation" in
>other countries, but over here in The Netherlands, we take great care NOT
>to create an American situation. Many lawsuits that make it to US courts
>are considered so ridiculous here that they will never even make it to
>court (such as the lawsuits mentioned in the nominations for the Stella
>Awards). Claims for millions of Euros certainly will not get awarded -- if
>you win, you usually get awarded any real damages (medical expenses, loss
>of income, cost of replacing/repairing damaged goods) plus perhaps a few
>hundred Euros extra for the pain. IIRC, the highest amount ever awarded was
>NLG 500,000 (at current rate, approx. $250,000). And that is an extremely
>high amount by our standards. >>
>
>
>Well, most Americans would agree with you about the absurdity of cases such
>as those mentioned above. They are usually caused by excessive sympathy for
>the suffering of the plaintiff (plus an expectation that the actual amount of
>damages will be reduced by the trial judge or by an appeals court). Also, in
>a lot of cases, these suits are eventually settled for a whole lot less, once
>the defendant has lost and offers less money in exchange for not appealing.
>But that doesn't change the fact of how utterly ridiculous these judgments
>are in the first place.
>
>The fact is (I think - hope?) that these cases are distinguished precisly BY
>their absurdity and they are not representative. Which does not excuse them,
>of course. Some of the "cures" mentioned (mostly by conservative politicians
>and by the lackeys of the insurance companies and the big corporations that
>would just love to be immune from almost any kind of liability no matter how
>guilty they are) would basically throw out all lawsuits, even legitimate
>ones, in order to guard against the frivolous ones we're all so incensed by.
>And my feeling is, I'd rather run the risk of an occasional judicial outrage
>caused by being too lax than bring about many acts of injustice by being too
>strict.
>
>What we really need, of course, is smarter jurors. Yeah, right.
Unfortunately, when I talk to my "smart" friends who have been called for
jury duty, they report that as soon as one of the lawyers finds out what
they do for a living ("programmer", "tech writer", "university professor",
etc.), they are summarily dismissed. Far too often, the lawyers trying a
case do not seem to want intelligent jurors who can think for themselves,
rather they seem to want jurors who they think can be manipulated into
voting their way. I've also heard of potential jurors for criminal trials
being dismissed after the lawyer asked them how they feel about the
police: are they likely to believe the police are always right and vote in
favor of conviction, or do they distrust the police and so are more likely
to vote in favor of acquittal?
(FWIW: I can't give you any personal experiences from jury duty, as I've
never been: frex, the first time a notice arrived for me to report for
jury duty was a few weeks after I left home to go on active duty, and every
time since then I've gotten a notice, something like that has happened to
prevent me from going. It could be worse: I remember having to call the
courthouse when I found a notice in the mailbox calling my mother for jury
duty a few months after she had passed away. Apparently, it takes awhile
for the records from one government office to get over to another one . . . )
--Ronn! :)
"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two
words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't
it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated
from schools too?"
-- Red Skelton
