Everyone wants to sue everyone but the funny thing is if they own up to their mistakes, they probably wouldn’t get sued in the first place and it would probably be cheaper for them.
Careful research has shown that the leading predictor of whether a given doctor will or will not be sued for malpractice has nothing to do with how badly he or she screwed up, or whether there was a coverup, or how expensive it is to fix it, it’s whether the patient likes the doctor or not. Turns out that a good bedside manner is more important than they even teach in medical school.
Unfortuately it costs more money to do business “the right way” so unethical companies are more than happy to play the “litigation settlement” game. I think they view settlements kind of like mail-in rebates, in that only a very small percentage of consumers are actually going to jump through all the hoops to actually try and enforce their rights. And when you have a political system where you can can legally bribe the rule makers to craft those hoops exactly as you like them, it becomes “regulatory and safety theater” where giving away some jackpots now and then is just the cost of business as usual…
A local law firm advertises that they got one of their clients a $10 million accident settlement. Probably true, but think about one thing folks – how badly do you have to get smashed up in a truck-automobile accident to get $10 million?
I love to see how corporate lawyers have pooled the wool over the eyes of the American people by convincing them that these lawsuits are all frivolous.
I jumped off my roof and broke my leg. I sued the builder for not warning me that this could happen! Most lawsuits are like this. They make the real ones harder to come to trial.
One ambulance chaser here has a billboard, “what’s your case worth?” Another, “$24 million reasons to call [him]. When I joined the legal profession, such advertising was prohibited. I miss those days.
Wonder how many people actually sign up to join ‘class action’ lawsuits based on tv ads? Many of them were resolved years ago. Even if there is some money left in the ‘sump’, lawyers will get most of that. A sensible person would realize those ads only appear on the absolutely cheapest tv networks: those that run ancient shows, which they ‘cut’ to allow more ad time. It’s a bonanza for them.
One case I studied involved parents suing a bicycle manufacturer and the driver of a car. The driver hit their son at 11:00 at night on an unlit street and the child was killed. They sued the manufacturer for failing to provide adequate lighting on the bicycle and for not warning that it should not be operated at night without it.
The bicycle was actually a tricycle, the child was 2 years old. The parents denied any responsibility in the child’s death.
In a trend driven by a series of Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1991, American employers are increasingly requiring their workers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements.
Under such agreements, workers whose rights are violated can’t pursue their claims in court but must submit to arbitration procedures that research shows overwhelmingly favor employers.
~
In reviewing the existing literature on the extent of this practice, we found that the share of workers subject to mandatory arbitration had clearly increased in the decade following the initial 1991 court decision: by the early 2000s, the share of workers subject to mandatory arbitration had risen from just over 2 percent (in 1992) to almost a quarter of the workforce.
This study finds that since the early 2000s, the share of workers subject to mandatory arbitration has more than doubled and now exceeds 55 percent.
This trend has weakened the position of workers whose rights are violated, barring access to the courts for all types of legal claims, including those based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties.
Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing.
In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.
Class action lawsuits are legal actions taken by a group of consumers, or a class, when a wide-scale wrong has been committed by a company.
Class actions are sometimes the best option for consumers for such wide scale wrongs, scams or fraudulent practices where a lot of time, money, effort and experience are needed to prove these cases.
But most arbitration agreements limit your ability to participate in a class action or prohibit your participation in class actions altogether.
Regrettably, settlements are considered by most corporations just another cost of doing business. It’s quicker and cheaper than actually trying the case, and most have a denial of liability clause, meaning “we’ll pay you off, but we didn’t really do anything wrong.”
Lawsuits against corporations are surrounded by myths making victims look like they’re at fault but a tiny bit of research breaks a lot of the myths (just one example: look at how hot that cup of coffee really was and the truth about the victim) . However, most people don’t have a clue how lawyers charge their fees, what their fees per case and per billable hour really are, or how tax laws work on settlements. Just one hint: Did you really think all or even any of your legal costs were deductible from the taxes on your compensation or settlement? Oh by the way, if a family member is in a plane crash, never talk to the people the airline will send around to “console” you.
If you want to understand why litigation is so profitable for lawyers and why there are no reasonable regulations on the often outrageous lawsuits, just look at the day job of most state and federal legislators.
When I was a child in the ’50s, our County Judge could have his Court Clerk decide if a case being filed was frivolous. If it was judged to be so, the party bringing the suit could appeal to the Judge. However, most did not.
Then, in the ’60s, that practice was banned. Court cases exploded and jammed the Courts. Most are so overloaded with cases now that it can take a year or more to have even the most obvious case heard, and it has to be heard even if it obviously is frivolous.
In my county, any damn fool can file a case for a $35 fee, and the Court has no right to review it before scheduling. That’s how the “chaser” lawyers make a ton of money. They file nuisance suits, and when people receive the notice paper they call the lawyer to find out how much to pay to stay out of Court. However, the case still has to be called, and the assigned time is wasted. The attorneys who do this receive the payment, subtract their “fee” (which usually is vastly inflated) and forward whatever remains to the plaintiff.
mr_sherman Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Unless you didn’t send a snailmail letter to Chase Bank to stop them from forcing arbitration on you for all disputes.
Watcher almost 5 years ago
Everyone wants to sue everyone but the funny thing is if they own up to their mistakes, they probably wouldn’t get sued in the first place and it would probably be cheaper for them.
Richard S Russell Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Careful research has shown that the leading predictor of whether a given doctor will or will not be sued for malpractice has nothing to do with how badly he or she screwed up, or whether there was a coverup, or how expensive it is to fix it, it’s whether the patient likes the doctor or not. Turns out that a good bedside manner is more important than they even teach in medical school.
artsyguy65 almost 5 years ago
Unfortuately it costs more money to do business “the right way” so unethical companies are more than happy to play the “litigation settlement” game. I think they view settlements kind of like mail-in rebates, in that only a very small percentage of consumers are actually going to jump through all the hoops to actually try and enforce their rights. And when you have a political system where you can can legally bribe the rule makers to craft those hoops exactly as you like them, it becomes “regulatory and safety theater” where giving away some jackpots now and then is just the cost of business as usual…
Alabama Al almost 5 years ago
A local law firm advertises that they got one of their clients a $10 million accident settlement. Probably true, but think about one thing folks – how badly do you have to get smashed up in a truck-automobile accident to get $10 million?
kaffekup almost 5 years ago
Odds may be better, but the tickets are way more expensive.
dende5416 almost 5 years ago
I love to see how corporate lawyers have pooled the wool over the eyes of the American people by convincing them that these lawsuits are all frivolous.
tripwire45 almost 5 years ago
Did somebody sue Wiley?
Masterskrain Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Shakespeare was right…“First thing we do is Kill all the Lawyers…”
NeedaChuckle Premium Member almost 5 years ago
I jumped off my roof and broke my leg. I sued the builder for not warning me that this could happen! Most lawsuits are like this. They make the real ones harder to come to trial.
ajr58 almost 5 years ago
One ambulance chaser here has a billboard, “what’s your case worth?” Another, “$24 million reasons to call [him]. When I joined the legal profession, such advertising was prohibited. I miss those days.
sandpiper almost 5 years ago
Wonder how many people actually sign up to join ‘class action’ lawsuits based on tv ads? Many of them were resolved years ago. Even if there is some money left in the ‘sump’, lawyers will get most of that. A sensible person would realize those ads only appear on the absolutely cheapest tv networks: those that run ancient shows, which they ‘cut’ to allow more ad time. It’s a bonanza for them.
DanFlak almost 5 years ago
Anyone can sue anyone else over any thing.
One case I studied involved parents suing a bicycle manufacturer and the driver of a car. The driver hit their son at 11:00 at night on an unlit street and the child was killed. They sued the manufacturer for failing to provide adequate lighting on the bicycle and for not warning that it should not be operated at night without it.
The bicycle was actually a tricycle, the child was 2 years old. The parents denied any responsibility in the child’s death.
the lost wizard almost 5 years ago
Both are a tax on the mathematically challenged.
Silly Season almost 5 years ago
Old news. The corporations are doing everything they can to make sure that they can’t be sued!
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-growing-use-of-mandatory-arbitration/
In a trend driven by a series of Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1991, American employers are increasingly requiring their workers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements.
Under such agreements, workers whose rights are violated can’t pursue their claims in court but must submit to arbitration procedures that research shows overwhelmingly favor employers.
~
In reviewing the existing literature on the extent of this practice, we found that the share of workers subject to mandatory arbitration had clearly increased in the decade following the initial 1991 court decision: by the early 2000s, the share of workers subject to mandatory arbitration had risen from just over 2 percent (in 1992) to almost a quarter of the workforce.
This study finds that since the early 2000s, the share of workers subject to mandatory arbitration has more than doubled and now exceeds 55 percent.
This trend has weakened the position of workers whose rights are violated, barring access to the courts for all types of legal claims, including those based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Silly Season almost 5 years ago
https://www.ncconsumer.org/news-articles-eg/mandatory-arbitration-clauses-are-everywhere-but-arent-good-for-the-consumer.html
Companies don’t want to go to court because it puts them on a level playing field. Courts are ruled by law, legal precedent, and legal discovery, which allows litigants to obtain information and evidence from their opponents or from third parties.
Discovery is a privilege in arbitration, but not a right. Arbitrators can’t enforce subpoenas, meaning you have to file a lawsuit just to get a third party or a piece of information into the hearing.
In open court, you don’t have to jump through nearly as many hoops. Further, judgments in court are often more favorable to the consumer, both in the rate of success and the dollar amount of judgments.
Class action lawsuits are legal actions taken by a group of consumers, or a class, when a wide-scale wrong has been committed by a company.
Class actions are sometimes the best option for consumers for such wide scale wrongs, scams or fraudulent practices where a lot of time, money, effort and experience are needed to prove these cases.
But most arbitration agreements limit your ability to participate in a class action or prohibit your participation in class actions altogether.
Bookworm almost 5 years ago
Regrettably, settlements are considered by most corporations just another cost of doing business. It’s quicker and cheaper than actually trying the case, and most have a denial of liability clause, meaning “we’ll pay you off, but we didn’t really do anything wrong.”
Display almost 5 years ago
Lawsuits against corporations are surrounded by myths making victims look like they’re at fault but a tiny bit of research breaks a lot of the myths (just one example: look at how hot that cup of coffee really was and the truth about the victim) . However, most people don’t have a clue how lawyers charge their fees, what their fees per case and per billable hour really are, or how tax laws work on settlements. Just one hint: Did you really think all or even any of your legal costs were deductible from the taxes on your compensation or settlement? Oh by the way, if a family member is in a plane crash, never talk to the people the airline will send around to “console” you.
DCBakerEsq almost 5 years ago
Don’t you just hate lawyers? I know I do.
Tootsie Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Torts-R-Us look it up.
Leojim almost 5 years ago
I knew (briefly) a family that made a living off lawsuits. Jerks
Bicycle Dude almost 5 years ago
“The King of Torts” by John Grisham is a good read on how tort lawyers operate and the greed which motivates them.
mistercatworks almost 5 years ago
Hey, that’s MY idea. See you in court!
Billy Yank almost 5 years ago
If you want to understand why litigation is so profitable for lawyers and why there are no reasonable regulations on the often outrageous lawsuits, just look at the day job of most state and federal legislators.
SrTechWriter almost 5 years ago
When I was a child in the ’50s, our County Judge could have his Court Clerk decide if a case being filed was frivolous. If it was judged to be so, the party bringing the suit could appeal to the Judge. However, most did not.
Then, in the ’60s, that practice was banned. Court cases exploded and jammed the Courts. Most are so overloaded with cases now that it can take a year or more to have even the most obvious case heard, and it has to be heard even if it obviously is frivolous.
In my county, any damn fool can file a case for a $35 fee, and the Court has no right to review it before scheduling. That’s how the “chaser” lawyers make a ton of money. They file nuisance suits, and when people receive the notice paper they call the lawyer to find out how much to pay to stay out of Court. However, the case still has to be called, and the assigned time is wasted. The attorneys who do this receive the payment, subtract their “fee” (which usually is vastly inflated) and forward whatever remains to the plaintiff.