The Cookie Monster will get you

[Biggles]

A snippet of something that I thought was strange




Girls fined for giving neighbour cookies

DURANGO, Colorado (Reuters) - A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 (480 pounds) for the distress a neighbour said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts.

The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbour Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day.

Taylor Ostergaard, then 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitte, 18, paid the judgment on Thursday after a small claims court ruling by La Plata County Court Judge Doug Walker, a court clerk said on Friday.

The girls baked cookies as a surprise for several of their rural Colorado neighbours on July 31 and dropped off small batches on their porches, accompanied by red or pink paper hearts and the message: "Have a great night".

The Denver Post newspaper reported on Friday that the girls had decided to stay home and bake the cookies rather than go to a dance where there might be cursing and drinking.

It reported that six neighbours wrote letters entered as evidence in the case thanking the girls for the cookies.

But Young said she was frightened because the two had knocked on her door at about 10:30 p.m. and run off after leaving the cookies.

She went to a hospital emergency room the next day, fearing that she had suffered a heart attack, court records said.

The judge awarded Young her medical costs, but did not award punitive damages. He said he did not think the girls had acted maliciously but that 10:30 was fairly late at night for them to be out.


Is it just me, or should the girls have punished a little more severely ...... for wasting good time and cookies on a complete eejit? :blink:

[vidcc]

Well I guess that woman will be short of friendly neighbours in future. Let's all hope one day she needs a favour such as a jump start for her car and is met by a wall of unfriendliness.

I found some more aboput the story....


They were successfully sued for an unauthorized cookie drop on one porch. The deliveries consisted of half a dozen chocolate chip and sugar cookies accompanied by big hearts cut out of red or pink construction paper with the message: "Have a great night." The notes were signed, "Love, The T and L Club," code for Taylor and Lindsey.

At one of the nine scattered rural homes south of Durango where they delivered cookies that night, a 49-year-old woman became so terrified by the knocks on her door around 10:30 p.m. that she called the sheriff's department. Deputies determined that no crime had been committed.

But Wanita Renea Young ended up in the hospital emergency room the next day after suffering a severe anxiety attack she thought might be a heart attack.

A Durango judge Thursday awarded Young almost $900 to recoup her medical bills. She received nothing for pain and suffering.

"The victory wasn't sweet," Young said Thursday afternoon. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson."

Taylor's mother, Jill Ostergaard, said her daughter "cried and cried" after Judge Doug Walker handed down his decision in La Plata County Small Claims Court.

"She felt she was being punished for doing something nice," Jill Ostergaard said.

The judge said he didn't think the girls acted maliciously, but it was pretty late at night for them to be out. He didn't award any punitive damages.

Taylor and Lindsey declined to comment Thursday, saying only that they didn't want to say anything hurtful. Young said the girls showed "very poor judgment."

Just as dusk arrived a little after 9 p.m., Taylor and Lindsey began their deliveries. They didn't stop at houses that were dark. But where lights shone, the girls figured people were awake and in need of cookies. A kitchen light was on at Young's home.

Court records contain half a dozen letters from neighbors who said they enjoyed the unexpected treats. But Young, at home with her 18-year-old daughter and elderly mother, said she saw shadowy figures who banged and banged at her door. She thought they were burglars or some neighbors she had tangled with in the past, she said.

The girls wrote letters of apology to Young, with Taylor saying in part, "I just wanted you to know that someone cared about you and your family."

The families had offered to pay Young's medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims. Young wouldn't sign the agreement. She said the families' apologies rang false and weren't delivered in person, so she brought the matter to court.

seems she was after money pure and simple

[cpt_azad]

wow what a bitch. i hope she dies lonely :dry:

[darkmatter]

I hope she chokes on the next cookie she sees

[bigboab]

What does a solicitated cookie look like? Does it have a bun in the oven? :blink:

[j2k4]

Absolutely unbelievable.

Can the Ewe Essay get any more litigious.

Quite possibly.

As an aside, Bush's efforts at tort reform would address frivolous/trivial suits such as this, but you all wanted Kerry/Edwards (a pair of lawyers), so nevermind.
:dry:

[vidcc]

Quite possibly.

As an aside, Bush's efforts at tort reform would address frivolous/trivial suits such as this, but you all wanted Kerry/Edwards (a pair of lawyers), so nevermind.
:dry:
Kerry /Edwards had a plan where the lawyers would be held responsible for bringing frivolous lawsuits....3 strikes and they lose their license..... did you not think that would help or did you have you fingers in your ears while shouting "I'm not listening, I'm not listening" while they explained that one ?.

Bush wishes to limit the payouts.

[Skillian]

the girls had decided to stay home and bake the cookies rather than go to a dance where there might be cursing

I think everyone in this story needs to get out a little more :P

[Everose]

I don't know what Durango is like, crime rate, etc. I also don't know what in this woman's history has made her react to a random act of kindness in this way. I imagine something in her history with the neighborhood was involved, whether real or imagined. It is sad to me that the woman is this way, but I have not walked a mile in her shoes, either. Have to wonder if she has a history of this anxiety. Luckily, she apparently didn't have a gun. :D

Busyman, what would you do if someone loudly banged on your door at 10:30 at night?

The litigation was carrying things too far. The lesson she taught these girls, to be careful who you are nice to and how, they would have eventually learned in a hopefully easier way. Sad that lesson has to be learned.

[Biggles]

Everose

The piece Vidcc posted suggested that she was feuding with another neighbour and given the way she reacted to these girls one has sympathy for the neighbour.

Presumably the girls will have learned that they should have opted for the cussing and drinking. However, hopefully, they will get the support of their local community and learn that kindness is its own reward.

Is 10.30 late on a Friday night for 17 and 18 year olds?

[sArA]

If I had been the judge, I would have awarded the girls damages for their suffering. It is horrible to do something nice and have it thrown in your face.

The sort of person who brings a lawsuit in these circumstances should be punished so that silly, money grabbing, mean spirited killjoys don't get to make the world a worse place for everyone and nice people can be nice.

Of course, I don't know the whole situation and so my personal judgement remains based purely on my superficial interpretation of the events.

[Cheese]

Maybe some of the "cursing and drinking" teenagers could give her house a good egging?

[j2k4]

Kerry /Edwards had a plan where the lawyers would be held responsible for bringing frivolous lawsuits....3 strikes and they lose their license....

The very concept is laughable, vid.

One of the biggest tort lawyers in America (Edwards), signing on to that?

My guess is that this was one of Kerry's campaign utterances or possibly one of the superficial blurbs from his website.

If the legal lobby had the slightest idea that such a plan would ever have seen the light of day, Kerry/Edwards would have been a non-starter.

[vidcc]

The very concept is laughable, vid.

One of the biggest tort lawyers in America (Edwards), signing on to that?

My guess is that this was one of Kerry's campaign utterances or possibly one of the superficial blurbs from his website.

If the legal lobby had the slightest idea that such a plan would ever have seen the light of day, Kerry/Edwards would have been a non-starter.
Ah so it was that you just didn't believe them...not that you disagree with the idea?...

Tell me, do you think the idea would work better than caps if it was actually implemented?

The Bush strategy penalises the genuine cases and makes it possible for companies to do "cost assessment" when making policy on safety..... It should never be the case where it it cheaper to risk the health and safety of others.

I do however find it funny that bush says people don't want large payments when it is in fact "the people" in the form of the jury that hand them out.

Before you think I am for frivolous lawsuits, I am not....I just don't think that capping payouts for genuine cases will solve it...and I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for my insurance bill to go down if the bush plan is implemented.
The Bush plan would not stop frivolous cases reaching the courts....and it certainly wouldn't have prevented this one

[hobbes]

I think he was pointing out that the actions of Edwards trump some vague campaign promise.

Edwards won his cases on cerebral palsy based on winning over the emotions of the jury rather than the scientific evidence.



@Biggles,

Knocking on a neighbors door at 10:30 PM, particularly if you don't know them well, is a bit out of line. 8:00 or 8:30, particularly when the sun is down, is probably as late as you want to be, unless you had called in advance.

If someone came banging on my door at 10:30, I would be quite startled. I would assume that some emergency had come up and be expecting the worst.

[hobbes]

The Bush strategy penalises the genuine cases and makes it possible for companies to do "cost assessment" when making policy on safety..... It should never be the case where it it cheaper to risk the health and safety of others.

I do however find it funny that bush says people don't want large payments when it is in fact "the people" in the form of the jury that hand them out.



Vidcc,

If we look at the drug Vioxx for example, it was approved by the FDA. The drug allowed many people crippled with arthritis to function again. The drug was so effective that everyone started taking it. Given the sheer number of people taking the drug, a very small subset developed side effects not discovered in clinical trials.

Instead of using this information to screen people at risk for complications and continue using this excellent drug, the company just pulled it of the market.

Why? Fear of additional lawsuits.

This is one of many examples where lawyers are taking good drugs and products away from patients, just because a few get side effects.

To put this in perspective, there is a small percentage of people out there that go into cardiac arrest when they take aspirin, a small percentage of children can get liver damage from aspirin. Should aspirin be considered a bad drug and taken from the market. No, it is a great drug, we just need to alert people who have risk factors for side effects.

But the legal climate today makes drug companies yank their products if anything goes wrong for fear of litigation.

In this situation, lawyers are looking to make an easy buck, AND they are hurting the 99% who were experiencing relief from a drug.

In such cases, the trial lawyer looks all doe-eyed at the jury and talks about Mr. Johnstons stroke, his poor widow, what is to become of her. Who can help here through these tough times. He says, "'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel him, I feel his presence, inside me and he's talking to you ... And this is what he says to you. He says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage."(modified John Edwards speech).

The jury is made of people and they look at the poor little widow, they see a rich faceless suit-represented corporation and they vote with their hearts not with their minds.

Lawyers are teh suxxor.

Capping lawsuits will prevent those crazy settlements.

1 part partial answer, 1 part rant :01:

[vidcc]

@hobbes
I am very aware of the many factors involved and that each case is different, that is why , class actions aside, each individual case is treated on it's individual merit.
The question is asked..... is the harm a result of negligent or intentional actions?.
You may say that the lawyers use emotions to win the case but then obviously they are doing their job and the defense lawyers are not.

Vioxx is an extreme case and in cases such as that the judge should have the right to use discretion in controlling the pay outs....not have a maximum.

But to the bit of my post you "bolded", I don't think vioxx fell into that category pre the dangers being discovered. Cost assesment is where a company KNOWS of the risk but it would be cheaper to take it and risk payouts than preventing the risk.... this has happened in the past

That said do you think that a cap of a quarter of a million would stop frivolous lawsuits?

[j2k4]

Since Hobbes beat me to it, I will recount a personal story.

I have a distant cousin living near Detroit-his prospective brother-in-law and wife had just been blessed with their first child (a girl, 6 months-old, or so) when they were killed in an automobile accident, orphaning the child.

Family (another brother, I believe) took the child in and instituted a suit against the offending party on "behalf" of the child.

Though the other driver was at fault, there was no determination of reckless or careless vehicle operation, nor was alcohol a factor.

The jury awarded the child 38 million dollars, if memory serves.

The case was surely not trivial or frivolous, but....38 million?

The brother who took the child in is living very comfortably indeed.

[Biggles]

I think he was pointing out that the actions of Edwards trump some vague campaign promise.

Edwards won his cases on cerebral palsy based on winning over the emotions of the jury rather than the scientific evidence.



@Biggles,

Knocking on a neighbors door at 10:30 PM, particularly if you don't know them well, is a bit out of line. 8:00 or 8:30, particularly when the sun is down, is probably as late as you want to be, unless you had called in advance.

If someone came banging on my door at 10:30, I would be quite startled. I would assume that some emergency had come up and be expecting the worst.


Hobbes

Fair point, 10.30 is not late to be out, but is perhaps on the late side to knock on a door. However, given it was a friendly act (unless their cookies are vile) I would still contend the reaction was bizarre verging on the theatrical and the legal action a total waste of court time.

However, muchs depends on the community. I have stayed in small communities where noone locks their doors and people open doors and leave stuff without a second thought. Presumably there are parts of LA where this would not be practical. The piece suggested this area did not fall into the latter camp - but I for all I know it might be akin to Fallujah. In which case the girls should not have been out delivering cookies.

[vidcc]

J2

I asked you a specific question which you did not answer.

Do you think if implemented the kerry proposal would or would not limit frivolous lawsuits better than capping. Keep in mind that Bush is touting caps to prevent frivolous lawsuits as a means to lower health costs. I have yet to see him talk tort reform without using the word frivolous

Personally I feel that payments and costs resultant of frivolous lawsuits overshadow the limited number of extra ordinary payouts in legitimate lawsuits

[hobbes]

Hobbes

Fair point, 10.30 is not late to be out, but is perhaps on the late side to knock on a door. However, given it was a friendly act (unless their cookies are vile) I would still contend the reaction was bizarre verging on the theatrical and the legal action a total waste of court time.

However, muchs depends on the community. I have stayed in small communities where noone locks their doors and people open doors and leave stuff without a second thought. Presumably there are parts of LA where this would not be practical. The piece suggested this area did not fall into the latter camp - but I for all I know it might be akin to Fallujah. In which case the girls should not have been out delivering cookies.

Hey, don't think I am supporting that twit.

I was just giving some information about what is the norm here. I was wondering if, in Scotland, people would be stopping by at later hours than here.

edit @ Biggles and JP's "open houses": So if I came to your house and it was all locked up, would I be safe in assuming you were "getting busy" with the missus? I would ring the bell and run away, giggling.

[Biggles]

Hey, don't think I am supporting that twit.

I was just giving some information about what is the norm here. I was wondering if, in Scotland, people would be stopping by at later hours than here.

No problem - and apologies for all the typos in my last. :blink: Not sure what was happening to my neurons there.

I don't know if there is more late evening activity here or not - 10.30 would be late for a visit but not late to drop something off or pick up a friend to go out.

Most bars don't close until 1.00am so a lot of people going out on Friday night don't acually leave until after 9.00 or later and there is a lot of milling about and what-not before hand - indeed, as there is at 1.30am/2.00am in the morning once the bars have managed to eject everyone.

It depends on the community, but I would guess there are a lot of places like that in the US too.

[hobbes]

@hobbes
I am very aware of the many factors involved and that each case is different, that is why , class actions aside, each individual case is treated on it's individual merit.
The question is asked..... is the harm a result of negligent or intentional actions?.
You may say that the lawyers use emotions to win the case but then obviously they are doing their job and the defense lawyers are not.

Vioxx is an extreme case and in cases such as that the judge should have the right to use discretion in controlling the pay outs....not have a maximum.

But to the bit of my post you "bolded", I don't think vioxx fell into that category pre the dangers being discovered. Cost assesment is where a company KNOWS of the risk but it would be cheaper to take it and risk payouts than preventing the risk.... this has happened in the past

That said do you think that a cap of a quarter of a million would stop frivolous lawsuits?

As I said, it was one part partial answer and one part rant.

2 years of my fathers life was wasted by lawyers accusing him and a whole group of other doctors of doing harm. My father had no role in the patients bad outcome, his name just happened to be in the chart.

In the end, none of the doctors had done anything wrong, but the insurance company refused to risk a trial because jurors are often motivated by emotion and the prosecutors were asking for millions.

Net result: my father did nothing wrong, he endured two years of stress, and he is left with the anger of a case settled against him that will taint his record.

The lawyers had learned a niche. All you have to do is file a suit and you get money. Insurers are going to give you something, just to avoid the risk of a big hit in court. Currently 50% of all doctors in South Texas (Rio Grande Valley) are being sued. Why? Because the area is filled with poor people looking for cash.

If caps had been in place, the frivolous suits would not be worth the time and it would become worth it for the insurers to fight the suit.

This is how it works at a University Hospital. Suits are capped and frivolous suits are rare. I think extending this policy to the private medical field would do the same.

I do not think it is a lawyers job to steal money because he knows he can emotionally manipulate the jury. His job is to protect people and their rights, not milk some cashcow called cerebral palsy which is almost never related to physician negligence.

The sickening thing is that these fuckheads adverstise on TV and even leave messages on my answering machine, wondering if I am the victim of medical malpractice. Standing up for the little guy my butt -crack, nothing but thieves attempting to punish people who take pride in their jobs and are doing the best they can.

Can you tell, that lawsuit against my father is still alive in my anger today.

[j2k4]

J2

I asked you a specific question which you did not answer.

Do you think if implemented the kerry proposal would or would not limit frivolous lawsuits better than capping. Keep in mind that Bush is touting caps to prevent frivolous lawsuits as a means to lower health costs. I have yet to see him talk tort reform without using the word frivolous

Personally I feel that payments and costs resultant of frivolous lawsuits overshadow the limited number of extra ordinary payouts in legitimate lawsuits

Oh...okay.

Insofar as it could be considered a proposal, it sure sounds good, almost good enough to give an impression of workability.

However, since the entire system is of, for, indeed, all about lawyers, I can only imagine how long and loud a lawyer would laugh if you even said "three strikes" to him/her, or expected a judge to tell a tort lawyer working a contingency case that he/she is pursuing a frivolous action.

Kerry's idea would merely present more opportunities for a lawyer to inflate his/her billing.

No, I think Bush's idea for caps is a better starting point owing to it's simplicity, which is the best weapon against lawyers.

I guess, then, that I would have to say no, it is not a better idea, which is not to say that it shouldn't be.

[hobbes]

No problem - and apologies for all the typos in my last. :blink: Not sure what was happening to my neurons there.

I don't know if there is more late evening activity here or not - 10.30 would be late for a visit but not late to drop something off or pick up a friend to go out.

Most bars don't close until 1.00am so a lot of people going out on Friday night don't acually leave until after 9.00 or later and there is a lot of milling about and what-not before hand - indeed, as there is at 1.30am/2.00am in the morning once the bars have managed to eject everyone.

It depends on the community, but I would guess there are a lot of places like that in the US too.


Yeah, I was talking about salesman coming to your door or people unannounced just dropping by.

For me, in Texas, I usually pre-bar (release the apple)starting at 10:00, go to my friends house at 11:00 and hit the bars at 12:00. Alcohol stops being served at 2:00am, Bars closes at 3.

Incidently, you can buy cookies all night long.

[vidcc]

J2
I would say that it's greed on the part of the claimant that fuels frivolous lawsuits...not the lawyers, however put an element of risk onto the lawyers and they are less likely to take on a frivolous case
I've heard people blame real estate agents for expensive housing, but it's the vendor charging the money.

i don't think government has any business interfering in settlements..... each case is subject to appeal and it is for the appeal court to decide if the award is fair....not the government to set a limit.

You wouldn't accept government dictating the maximum a private insurance company can charge would you?

[Everose]

Everose

The piece Vidcc posted suggested that she was feuding with another neighbour and given the way she reacted to these girls one has sympathy for the neighbour.

Her first reaction was one of fear and vulerability. Could her second reaction be to cover up this vulnerability? And we don't really know what her experience with the other neighbor was. These girls meant well, and as I said, it is a sad deal that they were taken to court.

Presumably the girls will have learned that they should have opted for the cussing and drinking. However, hopefully, they will get the support of their local community and learn that kindness is its own reward.

I think they learned, by the other seven or so families, that their kindness was appreciated for what it was.

Is 10.30 late on a Friday night for 17 and 18 year olds? No, for a 17 and 18 year old, the night has just begun. :D


I am one, though, that even though this woman had taken these girls to court, I would still feel sorry for her and if her car broke down I would be willing to help her with it. Even if it meant I might be taken to court for damaging it sometime in the future. :lol:

I hope these girls don't let this one woman's retaliation prevent them from being kind to others in the future either.

[vidcc]

I'm sure the girls would have learned a lesson if the woman had just let them pay the medical bills as they offered.
It is my belief that she only won those because the offer had been made so responsibility had been accepted.

[j2k4]

J2
I would say that it's greed on the part of the claimant that fuels frivolous lawsuits...not the lawyers, however put an element of risk onto the lawyers and they are less likely to take on a frivolous case
I've heard people blame real estate agents for expensive housing, but it's the vendor charging the money.

i don't think government has any business interfering in settlements..... each case is subject to appeal and it is for the appeal court to decide if the award is fair....not the government to set a limit.

You wouldn't accept government dictating the maximum a private insurance company can charge would you?

As long as there are ambulance chasers, there will be easy proof that your first supposition is wrong.

I would say you are definitely in the minority when you state that lawyers do not solicit frivolous suits; after all, everyone deserves his/her day in court, no?

I don't think government should have it's finger in most of the pies it does, though from past debates, I feel I can state you are more comfortable with it's propensity to assume entree than I.

As re: insurance, it would be pretty sweet if they felt compelled to charge me what I feel is a fairer premium, but I would much rather they themselves could regulate this rather than involving the disinterested government.

[lynx]

If the lawyers rather than the plaintiff were made responsible for the costs where a case is deemed frivolous that would soon cut the number of such cases.

Obviously there would be cases which are borderline and no doubt the lawyers would be able to get insurance to cover these instances, but if there were too many they would rapidly find themselves unable to get insurance. The result would be to change their ways or go out of business.

Of course, it then depends on someone ruling that the case was frivolous in the first place, which might not be quite so easy.

[j2k4]

Obviously there would be cases which are borderline and no doubt the lawyers would be able to get insurance to cover these instances, but if there were too many they would rapidly find themselves unable to get insurance. The result would be to change their ways or go out of business.

Sort of like Doctors, huh? ;)

[vidcc]

If the lawyers rather than the plaintiff were made responsible for the costs where a case is deemed frivolous that would soon cut the number of such cases.

Obviously there would be cases which are borderline and no doubt the lawyers would be able to get insurance to cover these instances, but if there were too many they would rapidly find themselves unable to get insurance. The result would be to change their ways or go out of business.

Of course, it then depends on someone ruling that the case was frivolous in the first place, which might not be quite so easy.

This would be a different approach to what kerry proposed....to make the lawyers the target and not the claimant.
@ all
J2 and hobbes have been pointing to large payments...and blaming the lawyers. It is however the jury that awards those and there are not as many as one would be given to believe. In the case of frivolous suits capping the payouts would not stop the practice. The lawyers need to be given accountability to stop the cases getting to the courts in the first place. How can one blame the lawyers and not wish to make them directly accountable?

I find people that sue fast food chains for causing their obeseity objectionable and they have no case to go to court with.

Genuine lawsuits are the reason we have the safety we enjoy here today. Make it affordable for companies to be loose with safety standards and they will be.

deal with the system to reduce frivolous cases..... leave the genuine ones alone

[hobbes]

The jurors are manipulated, and the insurance companies know this, and settle out of court in most cases. Vidcc, get it through your head that lawyers are initiating suits they know will win. This is manipulating the system for personal gain, aka stealing. (This is the whole mentality behind frivilous suits to begin with. You want to try and psychologically win over the jury as you know the actual case has no merit)

I will tell you from personal experience, jurors are scary. I got stuck in a box with 11 Jerry Springer watching idiots. Set a well trained slick lawyer against these dolts, manipulate their emotions and make them literally cry. Congratulations, you have just found a cashcow. The prosecution talks about poor babies, the defense has no such emotive retort.

How can you explain a situation where nobody does anything wrong and yet the prosecution gets $50,000 in an out of court settlement?

Also how do you explain that, as I mentioned before, it actually works in regard to University based practices.

How do you explain that 50% of the private practice doctors in the Rio Grande Valley are currently being sued and those associated with University hospitals are not?

When insurance companies are released from the fear of the huge suit, they will stop settling out of court and start defending their clients.

What happens then is that the frivolous suits are dropped because the lawyers know that can't get the quick out of court settlement.

I think caps will work because this is already in practice and it does.

Certainly this is one approach and it applies well to the medical aspect of this. But as you pointed out this may not be generally applicable as a manufacturer may skimp on quality assurance because he is now free from any huge lawsuit.

But that would address only the legitimate suits, the frivolous ones would be dropped as before.

As an addition1- (Actually Vidcc said this above, so I am fully agreeing with him on this point.)

I think the law firms should bear the burden of frivolous lawsuits. They need to compensate those they accuse for court cost and emotional injury.

You may say "shouldn't the client pay". In reality the clients have no money, so that is pointless.

If you want cardiac surgery, you do not just go to a doctor and tell him what you want. He needs to evaluate you and based on his assessment he decides whether he wants to operate or not. He does not operate so he can charge you for the procedure, he operates because he believes that you will benefit from the surgery.

Lawyers should have the same role. They need to assess whether the claim is valid or not. They should bear the brunt of bringing frivolous cases to court, just as a surgeon who poorly evaluates his patients soon loses his license to practice.

Addition 2
Why don't lawyers get paid based on time spent preparing the case and have their fees be independent of what the client gets. You get $5000 for a case whether you client gets $5000 or 50,000,000 dollars.

That way when Edwards says that he is fighting for the little guy against big business, it will actually have some meaning. It means he has chosen the case out of a desire to help, not for the huge settlements.


It seems that answer is not one way or the other, but both to some degree.

[vidcc]

The jurors are manipulated, and the insurance companies know this, and settle out of court in most cases. Vidcc, get it through your head that lawyers are initiating suits they know will win. This is manipulating the system for personal gain, aka stealing.

Get it through your head that i am for making the LAWYERS accountable get it through your head that you are blaming the lawyers and i am saying take the lawyers to task

I will tell you from personal experience, jurors are scary. I got stuck in a box with 11 Jerry Springer watching idiots. Set a well trained slick lawyer against these dolts, manipulate their emotions and make them literally cry. Congratulations, you have just found a cashcow. The prosecution talks about poor babies, the defense has no such emotive retort.

How can you explain a situation where nobody does anything wrong and yet the prosecution gets $50,000 in an out of court settlement?

cost assesment, the insurance company is not doing what it's paid to do (defend it's clients) because it is there to make profit

Also how do you explain that, as I mentioned before, it actually works in regard to University based practices.

How do you explain that 50% of the private practice doctors in the Rio Grande Valley are currently being sued and those associated with University hospitals are not?
could it be that people paying high prices are more likely to sue for anything they feel is less that perfect?
When insurance companies are released from the fear of the huge suit, they will stop settling out of court and start defending their clients.

What happens then is that the frivolous suits are dropped because the lawyers know that can't get the quick out of court settlement.

I think caps will work because this is already in practice and it does.

I don't agree with caps because they punish genuine cases where it would be obvious that more is justified.... what are appeal courts for?... the most i would find acceptable is that the judge in each case concerned should be allowed to either set the maximum the jury can give based on the case or reduce the jury suggested amount...on a case by case rule. That way companies won't have affordable risk to reduce standards to and excessive payouts would be contained

Certainly this is one approach and it applies well to the medical aspect of this. But as you pointed out this may not be generally applicable as a manufacturer may skimp on quality assurance because he is now free from any huge lawsuit.

But that would address only the legitimate suits, the frivolous ones would be dropped as before.

As an addition1- (Actually Vidcc said this above, so I am fully agreeing with him on this point.)

I think the law firms should bear the burden of frivolous lawsuits. They need to compensate those they accuse for court cost and emotional injury.

You may say "shouldn't the client pay". In reality the clients have no money, so that is pointless.

If you want cardiac surgery, you do not just go to a doctor and tell him what you want. He needs to evaluate you and based on his assessment he decides whether he wants to operate or not. He does not operate so he can charge you for the procedure, he operates because he believes that you will benefit from the surgery.

Lawyers should have the same role. They need to assess whether the claim is valid or not. They should bear the brunt of bringing frivolous cases to court, just as a surgeon who poorly evaluates his patients soon loses his license to practice.

Addition 2
Why don't lawyers get paid based on time spent preparing the case and have their fees be independent of what the client gets. You get $5000 for a case whether you client gets $5000 or 50,000,000 dollars.
I agree but that would go against the USAs "market forces ethic surely
That way when Edwards says that he is fighting for the little guy against big business, it will actually have some meaning. It means he has chosen the case out of a desire to help, not for the huge settlements.


It seems that answer is not one way or the other, but both to some degree.
What is needed is a clear set of guidelines by which the law community can make assesments of what is a valid case...break those guidelines and the lawyers should be held accountable.

[hobbes]

Ok, I got it through my head and I want theirs.


could it be that people paying high prices are more likely to sue for anything they feel is less that perfect?

Hmmm, do you really believe that? :no:

No, they are being enticed by lawyers to file suits via telephone calls and TV ads. The Rio Grande valley is filled with minmum wage workers who have nothing to lose.

A local lawyer shows what he has made for people and they stand there holding wads of cash saying "Thank you, Jim Adler" Jim Adler, the tough, smart lawyer, call me!

The fact the University system is capped is the sole reason they are hounding the private sector.

The cost assessment also ties in here. You can save time and money throwing a fraction of the desired settlement at claimants to make them go away. This is cheaper in the long run than getting some ridiculous penalty if a case goes to trial.

A cap puts the insurance companies back on your side and the frivolous suits (the ones we want to eliminate) go away.

It just simply works well for the medical field, but it does have limitation in general application (see below).

Anyway, you cannot sue for less than perfect results, you can only sue for negligence. A fine point, often lost on the jury. Bad thing happened to poor man, rich doctor in BMW---easy call.

To move the discussion forward, I think, as you commented, that capping the jurors is a good idea and that judges should be allowed to award damages over and above the cap. This would be helpful in those real cases in which safety standards were overlooked and people suffered real harm.

That is why we have judges right? It can be a tough call, but that is what they are there for. I think a jury can get fooled by a frivolous suit, but as Judge Judy once said, "Don't piss on my foot and tell me it's raining".


I agree but that would go against the USAs "market forces ethic surely

You would get paid for the time you spent working on the case, which is what your job is. The settlement is for your client, not you.

And don't call me Shirley.

[hobbes]

One additional point as to why I have been harping on lawyers stealing money.

This conversation started with J2 talking about caps and you stated that Kerry/Edwards were promoting penalties for frivilous suits.

Now, neither of us has objected to that point at all.

But considering that Edwards was exactly that type of lawyer (as I tried to illustrate with the cerbral palsy cases) at one time in his career makes one wonder if it was just a hollow campaign slogan.

And also the actual mechanism of how one places a definitive label that a suit was frivilous is hard to invision. Just because one loses a lawsuit does not make it frivilous, so what about a suit makes it clearly frivilous and who decides?

[vidcc]

Do you think the "cookie monster" or her lawyer in this case was expecting to get anything like 250k?...do you think that the cap would have prevented this case coming to court as J2 suggested?

[j2k4]

One additional point as to why I have been harping on lawyers stealing money.

This conversation started with J2 talking about caps and you stated that Kerry/Edwards were promoting penalties for frivilous suits.

Now, neither of us has objected to that point at all.

But considering that Edwards was exactly that type of lawyer (as I tried to illustrate with the cerbral palsy cases) at one time in his career makes one wonder if it was just a hollow campaign slogan.

And also the actual mechanism of how one places a definitive label that a suit was frivilous is hard to invision. Just because one loses a lawsuit does not make it frivilous, so what about a suit makes it clearly frivilous and who decides?

Quite right.

Thank you for clarifying, Hobbes.
;)

[hobbes]

Do you think the "cookie monster" or her lawyer in this case was expecting to get anything like 250k?...do you think that the cap would have prevented this case coming to court as J2 suggested?

As I said, it is not one way or the other, but a combination. Both methods have their merit.

[vidcc]

Hobbes I addressed J2 point about Edwards track record compared to the policy.


Ah so it was that you just didn't believe them

J2 suggested they had no plan... in fact they did but he didn't believe they would implement it...which is not the same thing as having no plan.

[j2k4]

Hobbes I addressed J2 point about Edwards track record compared to the policy.



J2 suggested they had no plan... in fact they did but he didn't believe they would implement it...which is not the same thing as having no plan.

Which is, from the purely practical standpoint I favor, exactly the same thing as having no plan. :D

[hobbes]

Quite possibly.

As an aside, Bush's efforts at tort reform would address frivolous/trivial suits such as this, but you all wanted Kerry/Edwards (a pair of lawyers), so nevermind.
:dry:


Vidcc,

J2 gives us his cynical outlook on two lawyers, one who made millions on frivilous lawsuits, being the right men to chose for tort reform.

It was like the UN placing Syria as head of the "Humanitarian rights" committee (I forget the details).

He would doubt the veracity of any words that might fall from their mouths.

I never saw him state that they had "no plan".

But again this proves to me that the words each of us type, echo differently in the brains of the reader. We apply a context to attempt to construct the true meaning, but it is always a bit different than what the original poster wanted to convey.

See kids, vocabulary is important. The bigger your vocabulary the more razer sharp your ability to convey precisely what you mean.

He never said that they didn't have a plan

[hobbes]

That determination would be made by the judge, on the request of the respondent. In the same way as the defence can submit that there is no case to answer in a criminal trial.

So what you would have would be the respondent, having won, would then ask the Judge to consider the strength of the evidence on which the action was brought. The judge would then consider that and make a ruling on whether the action had reasonable grounds, or whether (s)he agreed it was frivolous.

If (s)he agreed that it was, then the respondent would be entitled to not only costs, but some form of compensation, determined by the Judge. Thus discouraging the practice.

I submit this for your amelioration.

Oh man, you would love this job wouldn't you.

When I typed, who would decide, I thought, "Oh that JP, he would love that job".

"I would like to say that your case was specious and complete phish."

Back seriously, I was wondering if it is a good idea to have the judge decide. The reason being that it would give local judges a tremendous power over the attorneys. Since the jury makes the decision, it matters not if a judge does not like you. If a judge can make the determination of "frivilous or not", this could lead to some very dirty local politics.

That was my thinking behind not just giving it to the judge. I was thinking of some more detached government authority a "frivilous" complaint could be submitted to.

The truth is that the legal system is a very small community at the local level and these people all know each other. They may try cases at day and drink together at night. That is the reality.

I don't want local politics and influence using this loophole to strip a person of his bar or effecting the outcome of a case. and the other way where a judge may allow someone to keep trying specious cases because he likes the chap.

Am I making sense here?

[vidcc]

@hobbes

oh hum :rolleyes:

[hobbes]

You are making perfect sense. However there would be all the usual safeguards built in, including an appeal system, open to all parties.

The Judge is best placed to do it because they are actually there when the evidence is presented. Including but not limited to the histrionics for the benefit of the jury. They are aware which cases are based on evidence and which are based on theatre.

I am sure they currently form an opinion on the frivolity of certain actions. This would merely allow them to voice that.

I would not, as you suggest allow someone to be removed from the bar for this type of thing. For me the penalties should be financial.

Which bar are you talking about?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/scotus/10/02/scotus.cheers.ap/story.scotus.cheers.cliff.jpg

http://www.rikk-cowsys.com/style_emoticons/default/boab.gif

Looks like it's time to get me coat.

[Biggles]

Which bar are you talking about?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/scotus/10/02/scotus.cheers.ap/story.scotus.cheers.cliff.jpg

http://www.rikk-cowsys.com/style_emoticons/default/boab.gif

Looks like it's time to get me coat.


Now there is the man to decide what is frivilous and what is not. :) Norm could help.

[hobbes]

Now there is the man to decide what is frivilous and what is not. :) Norm could help.


That is "Cliff" you bitter little muppet!

http://www.cheers-becker.de/c_cliff_02.JPG

Cliff and Norm:

http://cheers.tvheaven.com/graphics/bnw/norm%26cliff.jpg


You muppets, damn!

[Biggles]

:lol:

It made sense when I wrote it. :blink:

I was trying to suggest that Norm could help Cliff (who liked to ponder the trivial) in his deliberations.


Nice to see the old photos though.