The reason malpractise insurances are cheaper in Europe

[kristo]

[web:9304d09354]http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHER94722820070829[/web:9304d09354]

[Michael]

I was told that in England the loser pays the winner's court costs, which discourages frivolous lawsuits and also discourages poor people from suing rich people.

[kristo]

I was told that in England the loser pays the winner's court costs, which discourages frivolous lawsuits and also discourages poor people from suing rich people.

Of course. Why should a plaintiff pay for having to go to court to get something rightfully theirs, and why would someone falsely accused have to lose money because of it?

It discourages frivolous lawsuits and encourages poor people who have a valid claim to go after even big companies with deep pockets.

[Michael]

Of course. Why should a plaintiff pay for having to go to court to get something rightfully theirs

Because, since cost of losing may be trivial to the rich but ruinous to the poor, too many rich people would abuse the opportunity to sue poor people on an uneven playing field where the outcome is uncertain; a game of extortion-Lotto for the unscrupulous wealthy.

and why would someone falsely accused have to lose money because of it?

Because the merit of an accusation may be in the eye of the beholder. Justice isn't guaranteed, since there are incompetent judges and juries, and sometimes the outcome depends on who has the better lawyer, publicist, position, or resources - including the resource of time - to litigate.

In the US, the judge at least sometimes retains the discretion to award court costs/legal fees to an exonerated defendant when the plaintiff appears to have bullied the innocent defendant in this way.

Btw, I'm not defending either system; it's messy anyway you slice it, whence the Gypsy curse: "May you become involved in a lawsuit in which you know you're right!"

[kristo]

Because, since cost of losing may be trivial to the rich but ruinous to the poor, too many rich people would abuse the opportunity to sue poor people on an uneven playing field where the outcome is uncertain; a game of extortion-Lotto for the unscrupulous wealthy.

While that is true, one must assume that in a majority of cases, the court's ruling is correct and act accordingly. Plus, if you lose the case, paying your opponent's legal cost is usually the least of your worries.

Because the merit of an accusation may be in the eye of the beholder. Justice isn't guaranteed, since there are incompetent judges and juries, and sometimes the outcome depends on who has the better lawyer, publicist, position, or resources - including the resource of time - to litigate.

Again, one must assume that the majority of court rulings are correct. If we assume that, we can safely assume that the best way to guarantee that the party *not* at fault should not have to lose money on the affair.

On publicists and stuff like that - that only works in countries where the judicial system relies on 12 persons with varying education (usually no education in laws) to decide. They have no experience in the matter and are easily swayed by theatrics. In proper systems, an expert (or a panel of experts) on law makes the decision.

In the US, the judge at least sometimes retains the discretion to award court costs/legal fees to an exonerated defendant when the plaintiff appears to have bullied the innocent defendant in this way.

Btw, I'm not defending either system; it's messy anyway you slice it, whence the Gypsy curse: "May you become involved in a lawsuit in which you know you're right!"

[Michael]

one must assume that in a majority of cases, the court's ruling is correct and act accordingly.

I wish I had your confidence.* On the other hand, many people are grateful that Thoreau, Gandhi, and a few others civil-dissidents around the world don't.

Plus, if you lose the case, paying your opponent's legal cost is usually the least of your worries.

At least in the US, legal representation can cost a lot. As in, potentially exceeding damages sought. Some nuisance-bullies with little to lose have been accused of gambling by railroading innocent, deep-pocketed, but otherwise busy plaintiffs into settling out-of-court. And some plaintiffs who receive free (that is, paid by you and me) representation by union or government agencies have been said to pursue unworthy causes persistently, with of course every minute of court time courtesy your taxes.

At the bottom of this page, our friend

A year or two ago, I posted about a lawsuit I was personally named in, it was frivolous but I was named regardless. My service chose to pay the small settlement rather than going to court and involving whatever else may accompany that ordeal. These little deals go on all the time. Many moons ago, I worked as Loss Prevention in a major retail store. Part of our job was assessing and watching for the slip and falls, boxes on head etc by customers. Whenever this happend, we were authorized in conjunction with the store manager approval to offer and secure on the spot settlements up to 20K dollars. These events will never be logged or tracked statistically by an outside agency, therefore they do not exist. Same thing happens in EMS land, just because it isn't on the news or some website, does not mean it is not occurring.

]and why would someone falsely accused have to lose money because of it?

Because the merit of an accusation may be in the eye of the beholder. Justice isn't guaranteed, since there are incompetent judges and juries, and sometimes the outcome depends on who has the better lawyer, publicist, position, or resources - including the resource of time - to litigate.

Again, one must assume that the majority of court rulings are correct. If we assume that, we can safely assume that the best way to guarantee that the party *not* at fault should not have to lose money on the affair.

What was the girl's definition of a condom? "Oh, those things that break?"

On publicists and stuff like that - that only works in countries where the judicial system relies on 12 persons with varying education (usually no education in laws) to decide. They have no experience in the matter and are easily swayed by theatrics.

Sometimes just being accused can cast a long-lasting cloud on a reputation (Google the late "Richard Jewell") which, in a completive market, can in turn destroy livelihoods.

In proper systems, an expert (or a panel of experts) on law makes the decision.

I'm sure you're familiar with the rationale for being judged by a jury of one's peers. I heard England once had some kind of class system, or something like that, that was rumored to be oppressive? :wink:

In the US, the judge at least sometimes retains the discretion to award court costs/legal fees to an exonerated defendant when the plaintiff appears to have bullied the innocent defendant in this way.

Again, I'm not defending either system.

*Two Scottish nuns who were nursing sisters had gone out to the country to tend to an outpatient. On the way back, they were a few miles from their convent when they ran out of gas. They were standing beside their car on the shoulder when a pickup-truck approached. Seeing ladies of the cloth in distress, the driver stopped to offer his help. The nuns explained they needed some gas. The driver of the truck said he would gladly drain some from his tank, but he didn't have a bucket or can. One of the nuns dug out a clean bedpan and asked the driver if he could use it. He said yes and proceeded to drain a couple of quarts of gas into the pan. He waved goodbye to the nuns and left.

The nuns were carefully pouring the precious fluid into their gas tank when an Episcopal priest happened to drive by, and seeing the stranded nuns, stopped to offer his aid. "Oh, thank you for your kindness, but Sister's just taking care of the problem now, and we'll be on our way in a minute." The minister watched in silence for a few seconds, then respectfully took off his hat, shook his head soberly, and exclaimed, "Sister, we may have our theological differences, but I must say, I admire your faith!"

[kristo]

This thread is becoming a debate on judicial systems.

Anyway, since you ask, no, I have never heard any reasonable rationale for being judged by a random assortment of people, as opposed to an experienced expert on law or a panel of such experts (judges). Anyway, if the jury system is so great, why don't Americans trust it enough to use it for the top-level (supreme court)? 8)

I realise that sometimes courts make mistakes. However, the system *should* assume that they are right. Otherwise, their rulings would be moot point and we would effectively have no judicial system. All those cases you mentioned, like stores settling with people who fall on the spot, etc. could be avoided if people had to foot the bill themselves if they lost in court.

To cover cases that aren't really frivolous, the judge can rule that the cost of the case be paid by the government, I believe they frequently do that when they feel that both parties actually had a valid point of view and neither was just bullying the other.

[Michael]

Another approach:

[web:c9cbace9fb]http://www.brokeruniverse.com/grapevine/thread/?thread=450948[/web:c9cbace9fb]

Oh, I kept meaning to say, sorry about the guy with the sliced head. Youch.

[kristo]

Yeah, that was pretty much what this thread was supposed to be about - the guy with the sliced head...