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.
Efforts to pass a federal law with penalties for filing frivolous suits have been blocked by Democrats for years.
That's ridiculous. Such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional (if anyone still cares about that), and there's already a law against filing frivolous lawsuits in the federal courts (Rule 11).
Moreover, what are you worried about? You live in Georgia, home of Yost and the possibly unique tort of "abusive litigation".
Efforts to pass a federal law with penalties for filing frivolous suits have been blocked by Democrats for years.
The legislative branch can't tell the judicial branch what cases to hear. That would be an unconstitutional infringement of the separation of powers.
This has been the problem with "no-fault insurance," btw. State legislatures passed no-fault insurance laws with the intention of eliminating liability lawsuits...but then the state courts told them, "You can't prevent people from filing lawsuits."
The legislative branch can't tell the judicial branch what cases to hear. That would be an unconstitutional infringement of the separation of powers.
This has been the problem with "no-fault insurance," btw. State legislatures passed no-fault insurance laws with the intention of eliminating liability lawsuits...but then the state courts told them, "You can't prevent people from filing lawsuits."
That's not exactly true if my understanding of workmen's compensation laws is correct. You cannot bring a civil suit against an employer other than to challenge a denial of statutory workmen's compensation benefits.
How many barbers tell a prospective customer, "You don't need a haircut, go home."
Judges on the other hand do it all the time, for example, the Supreme Court hears only 80 cases out of the approximately 8,000 cases submitted for a hearing.
Judges on the other hand do it all the time, for example, the Supreme Court hears only 80 cases out of the approximately 8,000 cases submitted for a hearing.
That's not exactly true if my understanding of workmen's compensation laws is correct. You cannot bring a civil suit against an employer other than to challenge a denial of statutory workmen's compensation benefits.
The first part of that situation is that you already legally agreed to accept the terms of employment, including workman's compensation--so you're obligated to the terms of the agreement, and those terms have already been adjudicated as "fair."
Second, workman's compensation does not provide immunity from intentional negligence or intentional cause on the part of the employer.
The first part of that situation is that you already legally agreed to accept the terms of employment, including workman's compensation--so you're obligated to the terms of the agreement, and those terms have already been adjudicated as "fair."
The vast majority of companies don't have a state terms and conditions of employment
Quote:
Second, workman's compensation does not provide immunity from intentional negligence or intentional cause on the part of the employer.
Again, that depends on the state's workmen's compensation laws which is the point, states and Congress can and do limit what kinds of lawsuits can be brought to trial
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.
