OK, lawyers, what's your take on this one?

[Furd]

that lawyer lobby is quite strong to go up against.

 

 

Not really, particularly if you compare it to the insurance company lobby.

[Furd]

If you stop for happy hour after work tonight, have too many drinks, decide to drive home and hit a parked car along the highway who's fault is it?

 

 

 

That's really not the point, at least the one that I was addressing.

 

wiegie asked about the lawsuit. I applied the facts as presented to some presumptions I made about the law.

 

Whether or not the law is a good one or not or I like it or not doesn't matter.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

That's really not the point, at least the one that I was addressing.

 

wiegie asked about the lawsuit. I applied the facts as presented to some presumptions I made about the law.

 

Whether or not the law is a good one or not or I like it or not doesn't matter.

 

fair enough

[detlef]

The simple fact is, there is rather substantial legal precedent for bars and restaurants being libel for drunk patrons doing things after they leave their place. So Furd's point is totally valid.

 

I think it's BS for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that trying to refuse service to a drunk person can cause quite a scene. More importantly, if a restaurant was to actually follow the letter of the law, they'd be the only one in the city doing so and would quickly go under because they'd lose a ton of business once everyone knew it was the place that would only serve you one or two drinks before they cut you off. After all, you are certainly legally too drunk to drive long before even a somewhat diligent bartender would ever cut you off.

 

So, the industry is forced into knowingly breaking this law and hoping it never comes back to haunt them or quite possibly go out of business.

[Ursa Majoris]

The simple fact is, there is rather substantial legal precedent for bars and restaurants being libel for drunk patrons doing things after they leave their place. So Furd's point is totally valid.

 

I think it's BS for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that trying to refuse service to a drunk person can cause quite a scene. More importantly, if a restaurant was to actually follow the letter of the law, they'd be the only one in the city doing so and would quickly go under because they'd lose a ton of business once everyone knew it was the place that would only serve you one or two drinks before they cut you off. After all, you are certainly legally too drunk to drive long before even a somewhat diligent bartender would ever cut you off.

 

So, the industry is forced into knowingly breaking this law and hoping it never comes back to haunt them or quite possibly go out of business.

 

Couldn't agree more. I think we've reached a pathetic state when someone can get $hitfaced and then blame someone else for letting them do so (except in the case of a minor, perhaps).

[yo mama]

No one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore.

 

I know when stories like this come up, it sure seems that way. Just consider that you only hear about *these* kinds of stories; when people do sue. You rarely, if ever, hear the stories about the folks who didn't.

[Donutrun Jellies]

The driver of the stalled automobile faces the least exposure. Plaintiff sued him because it isn't going to cost plaintiff much of anything to do so (given that there are other defendants) and because he is hoping that the driver is insured and the insurance company will pay something)

 

This is the most reprehensible part. Least exposure??? Maybe. IT'S STILL WRONG!!!

 

What about the emotional trauma suffered while waiting for the case to get thrown out wondering if you home and savings are about to get turned over to the Dad of the alcoholic, weed-carrier who nearly killed you? That stress is real -- my wife got sued by a driver who caused an accident she drove by ... the case got thrown out of court as ridiculous, but we still stressed over it as we awaited the court date and we were tempted to settle, but held firm while stessing over what they could possibly say that had merit. At least the judge chastized their lawyer openly for putting her through that ...

 

Then, both times my daughter blew her knee out, our own insurance company called trolling to see if we would consent to suing the coach, AD, and school for not preventing their all star from getting hurt ... it could pay for her college as well as the medical bills they had to cover ... I angrily dismissed them. Years ago, when my younger daughter caught her toe in a carpet at a wedding and broke her foot, some folks were convinced we should sue the hotel -- again, to get at least part of her college paid for. Inconceiveable.

 

Frivilous lawsuits hurt EVERYONE (diminished sense of personal responsibilities, increased premiums, defensive medicine, lack of credibility for lawyers, clogging of the courts, etc). America's work ethic has devolved into a lazy hope that something goes wrong in your life so you can settle out of court, thereby winning the frivilous lawsuit lottery!!

[dmarc117]

question for lawyers.....

 

regardless of merit or laws, is there any lawsuit you have seen or read about that has been in 'bad taste' or just plain wrong?

[Furd]

Frivilous lawsuits hurt EVERYONE (diminished sense of personal responsibilities, increased premiums, defensive medicine, lack of credibility for lawyers, clogging of the courts, etc). America's work ethic has devolved into a lazy hope that something goes wrong in your life so you can settle out of court, thereby winning the frivilous lawsuit lottery!!

 

 

 

Your personal experiences aside: 1) there are not that many frivolous lawsuit; 2) frivilous lawsuits do not "clog" the courts; 3) frivilous lawsuits do not cause "defensive medicine;" 4) frivilous lawsuits have no real effect on insurance premiums; 5) its silly to suggest that our civil jurisprudence system has any effect on "America's work ethic;" 6) the whole concept of the "lawsuit lottery," particularly one involving so-called frivilous lawsuits, is a myth.

 

Other than that, I agree with you completely.

[Furd]

question for lawyers.....

 

regardless of merit or laws, is there any lawsuit you have seen or read about that has been in 'bad taste' or just plain wrong?

 

 

Personally, in more than 12 years of practice, I don't think I have been involved in such a case.

 

I'm sure that I have read about some. None come to mind at the moment. The thing is, its difficult to assess cases most of the time because all you know about it is what the media reports, and the media typically doesn't report, or even care about, the things that you need to know to make such a determination. (See the McDonald's coffee case for example.)

[Donutrun Jellies]

Your personal experiences aside: 1) there are not that many frivolous lawsuit; 2) frivilous lawsuits do not "clog" the courts; 3) frivilous lawsuits do not cause "defensive medicine;" 4) frivilous lawsuits have no real effect on insurance premiums; 5) its silly to suggest that our civil jurisprudence system has any effect on "America's work ethic;" 6) the whole concept of the "lawsuit lottery," particularly one involving so-called frivilous lawsuits, is a myth.

 

Other than that, I agree with you completely.

 

Set aside the four real-world experiences I've had in just twelve years? Okay. What else have I got?

 

Having worked in health care for 20 years, I can tell you that frivilous law suits do indeeeeeed boost the number of tests physicians order and the number of specialists a patient sees and the behind the scenes stuff hospitals have to do -- it's all part of defensive medicine trying to justify a diagnosis or treatment plan in case of a crazy suit ... I also get to see how that kind of over-utilization increases the costs of the health care system which ultimately get passed on to people via their insurance premiums ... But since we're setting aside personal experiences because their realities are inconvenient to the justification of Papa Hancock's lawsuit, we can set reality aside again.

 

Taking reality out of it does limit the conversation, however ...

 

Without those insights, I've got nothing left to refute the legitimacy of Papa Hancock suing the guy in the breakdown lane that his drunk Josh Gordon-carrying son almost killed or to support my contention that those kind of lawsuits hurt our legal system. Since I've got nothing else, chalk this one up as a win for the victim-mentality mindset and the resulting 1-800-SUE-THEM abomination of the court system ...

[Furd]

Set aside the four real-world experiences I've had in just twelve years? Okay. What else have I got?

 

Having worked in health care for 20 years, I can tell you that frivilous law suits do indeeeeeed boost the number of tests physicians order and the number of specialists a patient sees and the behind the scenes stuff hospitals have to do -- it's all part of defensive medicine trying to justify a diagnosis or treatment plan in case of a crazy suit ... I also get to see how that kind of over-utilization increases the costs of the health care system which ultimately get passed on to people via their insurance premiums ... But since we're setting aside personal experiences because their realities are inconvenient to the justification of Papa Hancock's lawsuit, we can set reality aside again.

 

Taking reality out of it does limit the conversation, however ...

 

Without those insights, I've got nothing left to refute the legitimacy of Papa Hancock suing the guy in the breakdown lane that his drunk Josh Gordon-carrying son almost killed or to support my contention that those kind of lawsuits hurt our legal system. Since I've got nothing else, chalk this one up as a win for the victim-mentality mindset and the resulting 1-800-SUE-THEM abomination of the court system ...

 

 

Reality huh? I really didn't want to get into them, but let's look at your experiences:

 

-- my wife got sued by a driver who caused an accident she drove by ... the case got thrown out of court as ridiculous, but we still stressed over it as we awaited the court date and we were tempted to settle, but held firm while stessing over what they could possibly say that had merit. At least the judge chastized their lawyer openly for putting her through that ...

 

Ignoring the lack of facts (I'm not sure why your wife would be sued for driving by an accident), where was your wife's insurance company? In any event, the case was dismissed. Perhaps you can explain how the legal system failed you and how it could have been avoided in that particular case.

 

Then, both times my daughter blew her knee out, our own insurance company called trolling to see if we would consent to suing the coach, AD, and school for not preventing their all star from getting hurt ... it could pay for her college as well as the medical bills they had to cover ... I angrily dismissed them.

 

Your insurance company was looking for somebody to reimburse them for the medical costs they paid on behalf of your daughter. You didn't want to do it. This is related to the problems of "frivolous" lawsuits how?

 

Years ago, when my younger daughter caught her toe in a carpet at a wedding and broke her foot, some folks were convinced we should sue the hotel -- again, to get at least part of her college paid for. Inconceiveable.

 

Some folks suggested that you file a lawsuit. Scandalous. Damn, we need to do something about that legal system.

 

Sorry bro, but I just don't get the correlation between your ranting and those experiences.

 

And maybe you can explain what it is that you do to come across as an authority on how lawsuits and so-called "defensive" medicine lead to increases in insurance premiums. I'm betting that you work for an insurance company, because they always bitch and moan about that. Many if not most states have passed some type of tort reform that, in some cases, is pretty draconian. This results in fewer lawsuits, fewer cases going to trial and fewer jury awards. So that must result in a decrease in insurance premiums, right. Uh, no. Insurance premiums are based on market cycles and investment earnings. Lawsuits have little effect. Really.

 

The defensive medicine argument has a little bit of traction. But when you complain about "frivolous" lawsuits driving up health care costs and insurance premiums, you come across as a shill for the insurance companies or just plain ignorant.

[Donutrun Jellies]

The defensive medicine argument has a little bit of traction. But when you complain about "frivolous" lawsuits driving up health care costs and insurance premiums, you come across as a shill for the insurance companies or just plain ignorant.

 

Not a shill -- and I'm not sure it's my ignorance that makes me disagree with your take on the appropriateness of Papa Hancock suing the owner of the car in the breakdown lane despite his son's reckless intoxication.

 

I'm a long-time senior manager of a hospital that consistently ranks in the top 3 of the lowest cost among the hospitals in our state -- and we're a state that consistently rank among the lowest in the country for hospital costs. One would think that would make us well off in our state for insurance premiums ... Naaahhh -- we pay out our nose for insurance premiums and it kills us as an employer. A number of factors contribute, with the legal system being one (the cost shift of Dr. Dean's medicaid "system" is another, as is our shallow insurance pool) ... I was pleased that you were right on with your point on the effectiveness of torte reform -- only, we are one of those few states yet to enact torte reform!

 

With THAT established, perhaps our different perspectives are easier to reconcile. (Perhaps if I hadn't been a dick about "setting aside reality", it would have been easier to see this ...)

 

You come from a place where torte reform has flushed much of the foolishness from the system. I live in a state where "who can we sue?" is still the easy solution. With your point of so many state's way ahead of us on addressing torte reform, it's no wonder I see things differently than you. Our hope is that our state will move forward with some level of torte reform in the next legislative session, but there is a lot of resistance from certain lobbying groups -- as you can imagine.

 

Sooo, maybe we can see that our disagreement is based on coming from different places, rather than ignorance, and let it go at that.

[Furd]

Not a shill -- and I'm not sure it's my ignorance that makes me disagree with your take on the appropriateness of Papa Hancock suing the owner of the car in the breakdown lane despite his son's reckless intoxication.

 

I'm a long-time senior manager of a hospital that consistently ranks in the top 3 of the lowest cost among the hospitals in our state -- and we're a state that consistently rank among the lowest in the country for hospital costs. One would think that would make us well off in our state for insurance premiums ... Naaahhh -- we pay out our nose for insurance premiums and it kills us as an employer. A number of factors contribute, with the legal system being one (the cost shift of Dr. Dean's medicaid "system" is another, as is our shallow insurance pool) ... I was pleased that you were right on with your point on the effectiveness of torte reform -- only, we are one of those few states yet to enact torte reform!

 

With THAT established, perhaps our different perspectives are easier to reconcile. (Perhaps if I hadn't been a dick about "setting aside reality", it would have been easier to see this ...)

 

You come from a place where torte reform has flushed much of the foolishness from the system. I live in a state where "who can we sue?" is still the easy solution. With your point of so many state's way ahead of us on addressing torte reform, it's no wonder I see things differently than you. Our hope is that our state will move forward with some level of torte reform in the next legislative session, but there is a lot of resistance from certain lobbying groups -- as you can imagine.

 

Sooo, maybe we can see that our disagreement is based on coming from different places, rather than ignorance, and let it go at that.

 

 

Well, I'm not sure that we're communicating.

 

You think that Hancock's lawsuit is innapropriate or whatever. What do you suggest should be done to preclude the estate from filing a lawsuit?

 

And you may have missed my point (or are just disregarding it) about the effect of lawsuits, or threat of lawsuits, on insurance premiums. Enact all the tort reform that you want in your state, but your premiums are not going to drop.

 

As far as tort reform goes, I believe that it "flushes" more meritorious cases from the system than the foolish ones (at least in Michigan), but that's just me. (I represented doctors and hospitals in med mal cases for more than 7 years.)Many plaintiff's medical malpractice lawyers that I know won't take a case unless they value the damages in excess of $200k - even cases in which liability is almost a certainty. So if a doctor's negligence only causes you $150k worth of injuries, you're out of luck.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Furd

[Donutrun Jellies]

You think that Hancock's lawsuit is innapropriate or whatever. What do you suggest should be done to preclude the estate from filing a lawsuit?

 

I'm a simple man in far tooo complex a discussion it seems ... for my true wish is that the spirit of personal responsibility was strong enough in our culture that lawsuits like Papa Hancock suing the owner of the car in the breakdown lane would never even occur to anyone. That's the point I was trying to make before I got off on a rant and then got swept into wordplay with you ...