Edwards!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Part of the problem is what tw touched on... how the legal system operates.
There is a real need for people to seek redress for injuries from those responsible. That must not be downplayed because of abuses by some.

That said.....the television ads for personal injury lawyers, ruffle my feathers, big time. They're blatantly appealing to the get rich quick, money for nothing, quick buck, scumbags.
They're offering a commission, a piece of the action, for the use of your name/story, in fleecing somebody. It's as if they were soliciting screenplays for a docudrama.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

... but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you? Are you really saying that for X amount of money you would be satisfied or amply compensated for the loss of your childs life due to someone elses negligence?

You are assuming a world where everyone has same perspective. Value of that child to you makes zero difference from a perspective called society. Society values that child's life completely different. And society is paying the compensation. Again, you are quantitatively measuring using emotions. That cannot be accomplished. Lives have finite value. Society can be manipulated by emotion to grant more money for that death. That is emotionally gratifying - and wrong. Compensation based in emotion should be miniscule. Human life has a known value - no matter how insulting, cold, or ruthless that may be. How much that value is even changes with the person.

What is the purpose of compensation? The future. So that others need not suffer from the same human failures. It is normal and must be expected that humans will always make mistakes. Designs must continue to advance as solution become available and normal human activity – to make mistakes – becomes less catastrophic. The fact that lawyers are necessary says so much about – are symptoms of - others in society. So many forget the purpose of that compensation - so that others will not die.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Lives have finite value. Society can be manipulated by emotion to grant more money for that death. That is emotionally gratifying - and wrong. Compensation based in emotion should be miniscule. Human life has a known value - no matter how insulting, cold, or ruthless that may be. How much that value is even changes with the person.
What is the purpose of compensation? The future. So that others need not suffer from the same human failures. It is normal and must be expected that humans will always make mistakes. Designs must continue to advance as solution become available and normal human activity – to make mistakes – becomes less catastrophic. The fact that lawyers are necessary says so much about – are symptoms of - others in society. So many forget the purpose of that compensation - so that others will not die.

I understand the purpose of the compensation completely. My point again is that
1) I cannot put a value on such things and
2) Society feels it MUST put a value on such things.
Its a paradox, I realize that. But limiting the amount of compensation is simply telling a corporation that if they put out an inferior product or behave in an unsafe way, that it will cost X in compensation, no more - no less. Said corporation simply factors this "price of business" into their product. That doesn't benefit anyone other than the corporations.

Human life cannot have a known dollar value - that is, simply put, the value of life. - That everything has a monetary value or can be measured in dollars and cents. The mentality that you can factor out some dollar figure to equal a life is the real problem. Once that mentality is allowed to pervade, the society as a whole is doomed. Holding something so precious as a human life and quantifying it into a monetary unit or value cannot be tolerated.

Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem. Its as useful as putting oil into a car with leaking seals - the system doesn't need oil, it needs an overhaul.

Originally Posted by yesman065

I recognize the reality that as a society we have assumed some set values for some things, but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you? Are you really saying that for X amount of money you would be satisfied or amply compensated for the loss of your childs life due to someone elses negligence? Does it matter what grades he/she got or what activities or sports he/she played? You gotta be kidding me.

There is no amount of money that can explain what my son's life is to me & that is exactly the amount I would make his life about.
Those who say that they are trying to make a point to a corporation are just greedy. They know statements like that are a lie, both to themselves and the court. Corporations are not entities with consciences you can reason with by suing them... just greed & a sick legacy for their loved ones unless used ONLY to help other victims of a similar fate/crime and not for family profit if part of an existing policy that had to litigated.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Corporations are not entities with consciences you can reason with by suing them...

Corporations are business entities that are concerned with being profitable. Losing money is losing profit. Nobody here has stated an intention to "make them feel bad" by suing them. Corporations will change their business practices in order to avoid losing money through lawsuits. It's a "check and balance" against their ingrained purpose to generate more and more money. Remove the ability to punish them financially, and then you would be left with appealing to their non-existent conscience as your only option.

As stated previously, they are the ones putting prices on people's heads, not you.

So, you don't realize they are insured against such suits? The most it will cost them is a slight increase in premium that the company passes on to the consumer. Like a shoplifter, a person looking to cash in beyond their policy payout or settlement is only harming other consumers.
There is no "they".

[Flint]

So why don't premiums go down after Tort Reform is passed? Oops! The insurance companies just keep the money! What I can't figure out is how people are so goddamn naive that they think the insurance companies won't take Tort Reform as a windfall profit, like they demostrably do, every time it gets passed. What do we expect "them" to do, just give the money back voluntarily? Ha! The "harming other consumers" rhetoric does not conform to what actually happens. It's bullshit.

They won't go down because the number of frivolous suits will go up. Ambulance chasers will go for quantity over quality. The option of making less will NOT be an option.
Believe it or not, if you like, not all insurance companies are just out to bleed everyone for everything they can.
I was told, often, to do the right thing for my clients, and always did what was right for my clients. If someone tried to buy too much insurance for their needs or for what they could afford, I told them not to. I did this on a weekly basis. I was present for several sessions where claims adjusters told clients not to sue because they had been indemnified.
The "evil, blood sucking, soulless insurance companies" is a myth. The profit margin for most insurance companies is tiny compared to retail and other businesses.
When looked-at for what it is, it is one of the most altruistic forms of business out there.
The company assuming risk for the individual by investing for them and taking a loss in case something happens to the many in the short-term... that is the business plan. The rates are controlled by the state, "they" do not just raise rates as they like, your elected officials do that. Most companies only put in for a rate change when they have to, if they raise rates and are not competitive people & businesses leave to go to more competitive/cheaper companies... it is not like we get to charge what we want. There is no OPEC of insurance. No one company knows how another underwrites or has their prices like they do and those secrets are held VERY tightly. (This is why Progressive's ad campaign is such a huge lie and joke)
Urban myths fuel the common idea of what insurance companies are.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem.

Well go back to the 1970s when killing people was acceptable. Cited previously was the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds of victims were blamed for their own death. Reasons for those deaths and resulting judicial actions were reported deep inside the New York Times because human life was not important. Where we only learned how to maybe save your life because of lawyers filing suit against everyone involved in that building construction.

Same time was the Ford Pinto - a two dollar solution that was not implemented because it cost too much. People burned to death inside a car because the problem and solution was understood long before the first Pinto was ever sold. A lawsuit filed by State of Indiana that also remained buried deep inside the NY Times because human life had so little value - until lawyers started taking on these issues big time.

Same time was the Firestone 500 - a well known problem that was creating paraplegics and quadriplegics all over America. Firestone was paying off these people if they remained silent. Firestone refused to fix the Firestone 500 design because it was cheaper to pay off victims rather than fix a tire design. When government did a study, radial tire failure rates were on the order of 50%. House subcommittee determined that 13 million of 23 million Firestone tires needed immediate recall. So tire companies went to the Supreme Court to have that study quashed. Clarence Ditlow of Center for Auto Safety photocopied (a new high tech machine) and distributed the report to every reporter as fast as possible until handed a copy of the Supreme Court order. Ditlow is why we know how aggressively Firestone tried to kill Americans. That report was buried inside the NY Times. But something radical and new – Consumer Reports – told us including that seven of their own tested tires failed catastrophically. Still Firestone kept selling the 500. Financial damages were minimal.

Meanwhile you do remember the Firestone Wilderness tire that also was defective, Firestone knew it was defective, Ford then demanded Firestone recall all those tires, Firestone refused, and many reading this never learned the complete story. Ford got stuck paying $billions to fix Firestone's intention and MBA inspired murder. A problem that could be fixed only by lawsuit had Ford not been so responsible.

You know each story? You had better before deciding whether lawyers are a problem or a solution.

Tell me about the Macdonald’s coffee. If you have woefully insufficient facts, then you have believed the commonly acknowledged myth. I leave it to you to learn facts in that case - or do you quickly blame lawyers only because you read about it in a tabloid (too much summary and too few details)? After hundreds suffered, finally lawyers sued to get MacDonald’s to fix a well known problem.

So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.

Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.

Is this long? Yes, because logical thought it not found in Daily News tabloid type reasoning. Provided are four examples. You knew each or did you simply fall for highly hyped tabloid propaganda?

[Flint]

Super fucking busy at work. Let me refine my position to say: I think Tort Reform is bullshit, and I think the rhetoric used to support it is bullshit.

BTW... if my posts seem like they are conflicted on this point. They are not.
I am not for Tort Reform as it is currently presented. Across the board caps will simply make for more suits.
Nor are insurance companies the problem. They are the safety-net. Without them, no one would get anything.
We need more, and more strict, guidelines for the lawyers that bring the suits.
There is the source of the problem... not only the source, but The Problem itself.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.

Lets just say that you have left us with a long dissertation without actually discussing THE ISSUE. You simply went on about a few notable cases where wrongs were rectified. There are countless cases on both sides of this argument both for and against.

I never said that lawyers were or weren't the problem - YOU did! Hmmm.

Originally Posted by tw

So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.

I believe we were trying to do that before getting sidetracked on another tangent again. Just for clarities sake - the issue is tort reform right? And whether it will solve any problems or issues that our current system is dealing with. I simply offered alternatives - not absolutions. I expressed my point of view only to be ridiculed and disparaged. Now you want to challenge me with a statement like that? I don't think I'll bite on that one, no thanks - I maintain my position on the value of a human life. I NEVER said that cap limits were the answer. I am wholly in favor of QUALIFIED juries making logical and rational decisions. But that is an issue for another thread.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Just for clarities sake - the issue is tort reform right? And whether it will solve any problems or issues that our current system is dealing with.

"Intelligent design" means imposing religion on all others. “Choose life” is spin for anti-abortion. "Tort reform" means blaming lawyers. Politically correct expressions do not change reality. PC expressions are for confusing humans. Apparently you have not separated reality from the politically correct expression. “Tort reform” means blame lawyers. And so some would solve this lawyer problem by capping jury awards?

You were not ridiculed. Points made by you were shredded. Are those points you? Of course not. Those points are not the entity called yesman065. Separate yourself from ‘trial balloons’ that you have posted.

'Tort reform' is the politically correct expression for blame lawyers. Lawyers are not the problem. As each previous example demonstrates, attack reasons for those failures. Obviously tort reform would only protect those who performed intentional criminal actions. Do you also approve of ‘blaming the victims’? ‘Tort reform’ advocates that – even though ‘tort reform’ spin promoters will not admit it. Beverly Hills Supper Club - if you grasp the points of those examples.

Obviously, solution goes right back to empowering and requiring a jury to think logically. "Mission Accomplished" war is a perfect and 'never irrelevant' example if you understood the target of that previous post. We are massacring American soldiers in a “Mission Accomplished” war that cannot be won only because the jury did not do its job AND because the jury was denied all testimony in the jury room.

So what would you do to avoid a future Iraq? ‘Tort reform’? Gag all politicians? Require every military operation be approved by public referendum? 'Tort reform' also promotes restrictions as a solution to lies and spin. 'Tort reform' is how Limbaugh type propagandists spin myths rather than address the problem. Previous post contained numerous examples of the problem. ‘They’ got away with it only because tort law was not a sufficient threat.

But again, you also were not "ridiculed and disparaged". You were challenged with numerous examples because you previously ignored the issue (ie juries denied facts), used a politically correct expression to cast blame elsewhere (‘tort reform’), and now avoid details of that problem (ie. entire court testimony not in that jury room).

I am wholly in favor of QUALIFIED juries making logical and rational decisions. But that is an issue for another thread.

Exactly my point and why multiple examples were provided so that you could not avoid the point. Juries and logical conclusions ARE the issues of this thread. 'Tort reform' is a classic ‘cure symptoms’ solution. The "Mission Accomplished" war is a perfect example of illogical decisions and why such decisions are made also in jury rooms.

It does not help when more Americans in each generation have less math and science education – therefore have too little 'dirt under their fingernails' – therefore have insufficient grasp of reality - are instead educated in MBA and communication degrees. Too many are trained to replace logic with emotion; trained to confuse facts with junk science speculation.

How to obtain a fact and the process of making logical decisions (both in a jury room) IS the subject. Not a solution is some silly political 'ping pong ball' called 'tort reform'. 'Tort reform' is the politically correct expression for blame lawyers. The issue is why juries cannot make accurate, logical, and monetary relevant decisions. That is not “an issue for another thread”. That is the issue right here – complete with reams of relevant examples in a previous post.

‘Show me’ where tort reform would have solved any of those previous and egregious miscarriages of justice. Show me how those quadriplegics created by Firestone would have been saved by ‘tort reform’.

[Clodfobble]

I think there should be a large, mandatory financial penalty to both the plaintiff and their lawyer if a case is thrown out as frivolous.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Tort reform does not mean blame lawyers, despite your strawman examples.
Layers can't be blamed more than the greedy people that misuse them.
Tort reform is simply changing the laws, the framework, that lawyers work under and we all live under.

The discussion should be whether the laws are fair to all parties or should be changed to make them so. That's all, everything else is smoke and mirrors, a distraction from the issue.