Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with this thread is that there is a constitutional right under virtually every state constitution to file a lawsuit, so that one can have access to the courts to redress their grievances. You cannot preempt someone completely from filing a lawsuit because until a judge has had an opportunity to look at their pleadings, its impossible to tell whether a case is frivolous or not.
People do occasionally abuse this right and every state I am aware of has provisions in their code that give judges the discretion to impose sanctions for cases that are completely without merit or "frivolous". Most states model their civil rules of procedure on the federal rules of civil procedure. Rule 11 gives a judge the authority to impose these sanctions. An example of what I am talking about is this:
(a) Representations to court. By presenting a pleading, written motion, or other paper to the court an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(b) (1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(b) (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
(b) (3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support, or if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(b) (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(C) Sanctions. If after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11)
I do know a few lawyers and litigants who have been penalized thousands of dollars for filing a frivolous claim. Its not something one forgets quickly. It does happen and every state I know has a mechanism to make it happen.
What I don't ever recall happening in my 31 year career as an attorney is a defendant being hit with sanctions for filing a frivolous defense to a claim. Let me give an example: Jones drives his automobile into the rear of Smith's car while Smith is stopped at a red light. Smith is badly injured as a result. Smith sues Jones for damages for pain and suffering and medical expenses. Jones's attorney files an Answer to the complaint alleging that Smith was guilty of comparative negligence, or that he did something that contributed to the accident. The simple answer is that Smith was stopped at a light minding his own business when he was struck by Jones. He did nothing to contribute to this accident at all. Yet, I see this kind of answer routinely filed by attorneys who represent insurance companies every day.
My point is that sanctions should cut both ways. They should apply to both those who file frivolous cases and those make frivolous defenses. The language in Rule 11 allows for this. However, the rule is only applied one way.
Lawsuits are distressing. However, the right to sue is a critical right that allows individuals to redress their grievances.
Congress should stay out of the state legal systems completely. Imposition of these sanctions is a matter of state, not federal law.
Criminal and civil justice is a messy business. Some people would prefer less mess... and less justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
Do you know who would benefit most by a silly law like that? Yes, mega corporations. Think about it.
Mick
Indeed.
But the Republicans - who drag their feet and refuse hearings and votes for many dozens of President Obama's nominees as the number of judicial vacancies soars to unprecedented levels - are so concerned about the courts being clogged. Uh huh...
The problem with this thread is that there is a constitutional right under virtually every state constitution to file a lawsuit, so that one can have access to the courts to redress their grievances. You cannot preempt someone completely from filing a lawsuit because until a judge has had an opportunity to look at their pleadings, its impossible to tell whether a case is frivolous or not.
People do occasionally abuse this right and every state I am aware of has provisions in their code that give judges the discretion to impose sanctions for cases that are completely without merit or "frivolous". Most states model their civil rules of procedure on the federal rules of civil procedure. Rule 11 gives a judge the authority to impose these sanctions. An example of what I am talking about is this:
...
Sorry counselor...there are simply too many frivolous lawsuits to keep up with AND THE SYSTEM itself is perverted.
Defense attorneys have no interest in quickly settling claims as their employers (insurance companies) gladly pay them large hourly fees. HENCE, its in the defense attorney's interest to keep any lawsuit alive as the more paperwork filed, the more $ they make.
A PI attorney also gets paid for filing frivolous suits as Insurance companies and actuarial matrix's show where the sweet spot is in settling vs. fighting a frivolous lawsuit.
Insurance companies don't care either. Insurance is a forced place policy. You simply aren't allowed to drive unless you have insurance. This is also the case in most business and real estate interests.
Anyone is free to file a lawsuit, even if frivolous. This will be thrown out due to the castle doctrine laws in SC which protect people from this very thing. Basically, you get killed committing a crime in SC, your relatives do not get to try and profit off your crimes via the courts.
Anyone is free to file a lawsuit, even if frivolous. This will be thrown out due to the castle doctrine laws in SC which protect people from this very thing. Basically, you get killed committing a crime in SC, your relatives do not get to try and profit off your crimes via the courts.
This is good to know my wife & I are moving to Greenville with in the next two years. I was thinking they had it. I used to live in Columbia, Sc for 8 years & I asked a cop what were my rights for defending my home. I was told shoot them dead. If I am out & someone breaks into my home I want her to be able to use deadly force if needed.
Anyone is free to file a lawsuit, even if frivolous. This will be thrown out due to the castle doctrine laws in SC which protect people from this very thing. Basically, you get killed committing a crime in SC, your relatives do not get to try and profit off your crimes via the courts.
I take it you did not read the entire story linked. Allegations of the parties knowing each other and possibly having a relationship of sorts fly in the face of the shooter's claim he had shot a stranger. Right or wrong this should certainly open the case to further investigation and/or civil claims.
Sorry counselor...there are simply too many frivolous lawsuits to keep up with AND THE SYSTEM itself is perverted.
How do you know what is frivolous and what isn't, news headlines?
I think back about all the yelling screaming and abuse that was heaped upon Stella Liebeck when she became the national poster woman for frivolous lawsuits when she sued McDonald's for being scaled by a cup of coffee. What wasn't reported in the media was the Mrs. Liebeck suffered 3rd degree burns (the most severe) over six percent of her body over an area that included her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genitals and groin. Her injuries required that she be hospitalized for eight days, during which she underwent excruciating debridement and skin grafts. Why, because McDonald's believed that their coffee tasted best at temperatures as high as 190 degrees fahrenheit. During discovery McDonald's own quality assurance manager admitted that McDonald's was fully aware that foods served at 140 degree posed a burn hazard yet strictly adhered to the 190 degree requirement.
Liebeck initially offered to settle a mere $20,000.00 but McDonald's refused (so much for insurance companies just folding argument) so Liebeck moved ahead with the law suit where a jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.
Regarding the punitive damages, Jerry Spence perhaps one of the most successful public injury attorney put what some see as outrageous awards this way (paraphrasing from memory), "If a paper boy negligently ran over your kid you wouldn't be outraged if the boy was forced to two pay a days pay to pay in restitution..." So why would $2.7 million, the amount of about two days worth of McDonald's coffee sales be considered an outrageous amount for punitive damages? And when you consider that before Liebeck's civil action McDonald's was fully aware that their coffee posed a risk having received 700 other claims between 1982 and 1992 yet refused to lower the temp of their coffee for no other reason that a belief that it was a temperature that the coffee tasted best, despite the fact that to drink their coffee at its best tasting temperature would expose the drinker to 3rd degree burns of the mouth and throat!
With that in mind, before jumping on the band wagon of when some snarky news reader reports on some story about the filing of a "frivolous lawsuit" it would behove folks to know the facts as they were presented
at trial.
An intruder breaks into a guys house, guy shoots intruder, intruder's mom sues.
I haven't looked it up, but I'll be my paycheck the intruder has a previous criminal record.
I agree..... THE GUY WAS THERE TO STEAL,NOT TO BE NICE TO THE OWNER!!!!!!
The guy got what he deserved!!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
