>From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Fw: [Seebergers] Stella Award Candidates
>Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:47:42 -0500
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:04 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: [Seebergers] Stella Award Candidates
>
>
> > Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >
> > >2 We care a lot more for our rights and freedoms, than for the minimal
> > >benefits to be gained by giving them up.
> > >
> > I can understand that giving up trial by jury would be a difficult thing
> > for Americans,
>
>Yes, I think most people would feel that to be wrong.
>
> > but there should be some limitations.
>
>I think most Americans would agree.
>
> >One simple one is
> > you shouldn't be able to sue for damages incurred during the commission
> > of a crime - that's just silly...
>
>The problem is getting legislators to do something about it. The fact that
>a
>good many of them are lawyers and could benefit under the current rules
>might have something to do with the slowness of change.
>
> >I also don't think punitive damages
> > should go to the individual, they should only get real damages and
> > restitution for pain and suffering etc.
>
>I'd like to see some discussion along those lines.
>
> >
> > But I have a couple of questions:
> > 1. Arbitration and Mediation are taking on as optional preliminary steps
> > prior to a case being heard in many places around the world - is this
> > widespread in the USA too?
>
>Maybe someone can verify this, but I think this is often the way its done
>here. I know that in divorce cases in Texas mediation is required.
>
> > 2. The cases mentioned were old - does the trend for these massive
> > payouts continue, or is there a more realistic approach occurring now?
>
>http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.htm
>David provided this link on the Culture list last night.
>And Dan spoke about the payouts being reduced on appeal in a post this
>morning.
>I think both are required reading for a good understanding of how these
>things actually work.
>
> >
> > Australia is (as usual) following the USA, and our courts are now
> > handing out stupid payouts left right and centre, causing a massive
> > crisis in the liability insurance industry, which is now passing this
> > back to consumers.
> >
>I think the cost of litigation is a pretty massive cost center also.
>
>xponent
>Fairly Ignorant Actually Maru
>rob
Speaking completely anecdotally for a minute, hasn't it been said that the
rising cost of medical care in the U.S. is at least partially caused by the
skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance? Even if a suit ends up getting
dismissed or the person filing the lawsuit doesn't win, the malpractice
insurance company still has to pay for a lawyer to defend the doctor.
Some sort of screening or arbitration system might work, but only if the
cost was significantly less that legal fees. And since the majority of
those who make the laws are lawyers themselves, what are the odds of *that*
happening?
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
