|
Sue Happy America
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/20/g...s.ap/index.html
I love watching us Americans flush all personal responsiblity down the drain in attempt to widen our ability to sue others. It's not the shooters fault, or even the gun dealer's fault, it's the gun maker's fault. We are approaching the point where it seems someone other then the main perpetrator must be at fault in all cases and must also be severley punished for even the most remote connection to the crime. Hopefully we'll all just quickly sue each other into oblivion and get it over with.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/11/landmark.dwi.case/
| quote: | | Powell faced up to 15 years in prison if convicted. He was charged in the case even though he was not present at the accident, provided his friend with no alcohol and did not own the vehicle that his friend was driving. |
I watched this one closely at the beginning of last year. It left me speechless when I heard of the charges. I just can't figure out what brought about such a sue-happy, shameless America. When did we shift the fault of a crime from the person who commited it to everyone even remotely associated with it? I really hope there's a "cure" to our sick culture.
That being said, is there this kind of problem in other countries? Are other nations suing themselves to death? |
|
|
| occrider |
Hello fellow libertarian ... not knowing the full details of the cases at hand, I shall provide my opinion on the two:
A) I would side with the defendants. If the company lawfully fulfilled requests from polic departments and gun sellers, it cannot be held libel for transgressions committed by the gun sellers or the police department. Now, if they are required by law to report suspicious actiivity, THAN they may be held libel.
B) I completely side with the defendant. The defendant is under no legal obligation to drive the victim home. Furthermore, the defendant lacks the ability to determine the victim's state of drunkness since they lack breathalizers and testing techniques that the police use. Lastly, it is not the defendant's responsibility to restrict the victim's actions but the POLICE'S ... at the minute the police released the victim to public custody, the victim became a free citizen. Additionally the police is held accountable for releasing the victim to a person who may not be of sound mind to handle such a person. For example, if the police were to release the person to a retard, who is accountabe? THe police or the retard? Therefore if teh glove fits you must aquit |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | | Hello fellow libertarian ... |
You're totally correct. It sickens me to see our country gear itself to the "lowest common denomenator" by stripping indvidual rights and forcing socialism upon us.
I think social security is a perfect example. If you're too stupid or ignornant to not know that you must save and invest your money in order to someday be able to live upon your capital and returns, it should not force others to have to put their efforts into this system. First of all, a government with this much beaurocracy is ineffecient and much to slow to be able to adequetly run any kind of investment program. Secondly, it should not be mandatory that all Americans donate their earnings to such a system, when private investment can be more much rewarding both in the short and long run.
That being said, I do not believe in some sort of cut-throat society where those born with obvious mental deficiencies should be left out in the cold. There does need to be some basic welfare for those either unable to look after themselves, or those that have short-term economic pitfalls, in which case it should be a work program, not a handout. Along with my belief that the government should not be responsible for "looking out" for the average man, my views on education are different from the average libertarian's. I strongly believe that education, besides defense, is the most important function a government can undertake. Through education a person is given the ability to make educated choices and look out for themselves, so ultimately the government doesn't have to. Through this education, an individual can make thier own choices as to their life and future, instead of having a government that forces itself to do it for us.
I realize that my reply may not seem to have much in common with my original post. However, as a side effect of increasing socialism in the United States, I see a decrease in personal responsiblity as our government becomes more "protective" of us in our daily lives. This loss of responsiblity spills over into our daily lives and into our court system. |
|
|
| rupert |
I would strongly suggest that if you dislike the law suit mentality read Trial Lawyers Inc an extremely funny commentary done in the form of an Annual Report by the right wing think tank the Manhattan Institute.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/triallawyersinc.pdf
Which brings the question why do the right wingers and the corporations in America hate the trial lawyers so much? Because the legal system in america, by the legal system I mean tort law is actually a wealth transfer from the wealthy back to the non-wealthy.
Why the obsession with tort reform by politicians? Why make it more difficult to bring a claim for negligence? Is the legal system out of control? No, its just market forces at work, people dont get sufficient protection from the legislature and executive so they use the judiciary. In turn the corporations dont like paying billions in damages, the corporations cant change the common law or the judicial system so get the legislature to pass laws to limit damages claims.
In the USA by and large the legislature and executive exists to serve the interests of the corporate sector and the wealthy lobby groups, so Congress is always reluctant to impose regulations on cigarette companies, manufacturersm, Wall Street and polluters. And those laws that do get made are not properly enforced.
But the average Joe still has the Constitution, the law of Contract and the law of Tort which protects him just like it protects the corporations and the wealthy. So all those billions that paid out in damages claims are as I said just a wealth transfer from the corporate sector back to the non-corporate sector. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
That being said, is there this kind of problem in other countries? Are other nations suing themselves to death? |
In Scandinavia we do not have these tragicomical lawsuits, although (so far) we do have two lawsuits against the tobacco industry ("for making me an addict"). The first one was settled some months ago with a just victory to the tobacco company, while the second one is still pending. I hope that we never reach the absurd levels you give examples of in your post, but I do see more and more people blaming society/anybody but themselves for everything problematic in their lives. Responsibility is quickly becoming a thing of the past. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I do not agree that lawsuits should be the means of wealth redistribution. For the most part, when large corporations are sued for billions or other large settlements, the money does not come from the rich executives, but from the company itself. The award money is either deferred to the consumer, in the form of higher costs, or to the workers, in the form of job cuts.
We have seen this exact thing happen in medicine. When patients are allowed to sue "wealthy" doctors, for at time frivalous reasons, and are awarded large settlements, it is ultimately the consumer that pays. True, one person, or small group of persons may have increased their wealth, but the effect on the population as a whole is exactly the opposite. As malpractice insurance rates rise not only are there going to be less doctors, but to diffuse the increased costs, consumers will pay more for services.
What I am trying to get at is strictly speaking in terms of wealth distribution, suing is not very beneficial. A small group may benefit from the award, but as a whole, the rest of society must pick up the price of the settlement in terms of increased costs, or loss of jobs. |
|
|
| occrider |
The current problems with tort law are not the punitive damages it may levy upon negligent corporations or individuals who committ wrongdoing ... that in itself is a healthy practice in which corporate responsibility is encouraged while those who are not being responsible are held accountable to their actions. The problem is that our society has become so litigious as a result of a societal perception of tort law enabling people to become instant millionaires, that the legal system is being overwhelmed with frivolous cases ....
http://www.stellaawards.com/index.html |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Occrider is correct. And it goes hand in hand with the entitlement mentality that so many people have come to posess. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Occrider is correct. And it goes hand in hand with the entitlement mentality that so many people have come to posess. |
I concur.
And as for Social Security - well, that's a different topic and should be used as a different thread (which brings up an idear for me...). But perhaps many folks do not have enough salary to invest on a regular basis, and therefore must rely heavily on social security upon retirement. That's without doing any research, but I have a feeling it would be something along those lines. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Occrider, I agree. The courts can be used as a "checks and balances" if you will, to keep companies and individuals honest when they really are at fault. However as we becoming increasingly flooded with these frivalous lawsuits (seemingly starting from the famous "McDonalds coffee burned me" case) and astronomically large awards, we have gone past the point of keeping people honest, to the verge of destroying the country's legal system.
The judges of the land need to grow some balls and dismiss these outrageous cases. Lawyers today work specifically for the kind of malpractice and personal injury cases that fuel this horrible fire, and they won't be the ones to fix it as long as the money is there. Which leads me to my second point. The punitive damages in these cases need to be limited. I don't care who you are or what happened, there needs to be reasonable limits on how much you can receive. Ford does not owe $4.9 billion to a family burned in a car, or $259 million to a rollover victim. These are rediculous settlements and as I said before do more to hurt the public and the people who work for a company than the company itself. I also wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "loser pays all" court fee system, in which the loser of a case pays court costs for both sides. I think this would also help to reduce these rediculous court cases. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I'll never forget the infamous Seinfeld episode. If only we could get these millionaire decisions reversed in exchange for a lifetime supply of Starbucks! |
|
|
| biznology |
ok, so im not exactly sure how the ability to sue anyone equals a rise in socialism, or whatever...
basically this problem could be solved just as its solved (for the most part) in other countries - require the person who brings the lawsuit before the courts to pay all costs if the lawsuit fails or is thrown out. as it is now, even if a defendant wins- they are still losing because they have to pay to defend themselves against irresponsible lawsuits| |
|
|
|
|
