You can't do anything nice

[Nightcloak]

John Stossel's book talks about frivolous lawsuits in this country. Very interesting read. I highly recommend it. Basically, he says that the U.S. is one of the few countries where you can sue, and you suffer no loss if you don't win. In other words, in most countries of the world, if you lose the case, you have to pay the other guy's legal fees. Not here. So, as a result people sue with impunity.

There was a story in his book about some woman who went to law school, never passed the bar, but sued people in her neighborhood for frivolous reasons all the time. Like, once for the kids playing basketball outside. She sued for disturbing the peace. She knew the legal system well enough to try her case herself, and she didn't have to cover lawyers fees that way. However, anyone that didn't want to pay her, had to hire an expensive lawyer, so it was just lose/lose for the people she sued.

The system is broken. (at least in the U.S.)
But try getting lawmakers (i.e., lawyers) to fix it. Doubtful.

/didn't read the article

Great Read. I got to see him speak about the book in Vegas last year (and got the book signed!). I liked the part were he compared lawyers to guided missiles: "Necessary to protect people's rights in a free society, but should only be used as a last resort do to the fact they also hurt innocent people and cause collateral damage."

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

It's a sad day when playing "ding-dong ditch" has more serious repercussions than a misdemeanor assault.

Remember when kids used to be able to ride their bikes without a FREEKIN' HELMET on?


Stop the Madness! - Barsoomcore for Dicator!

 

[James Heard]

As I've replied ad nauseum on other boards this is a reasonable case thanks to common law views of unintended and unforseeable consequences (toy manufacturers, etc) that was pretty much taken advantage of by the woman in question. You can't take away her right to take the case to court without setting a precedent and you can't arbitrarily dismiss her claim of damages just because she asked for punitive rewards as well - because it would also set up a precedent that other people would take advantage of. Since the parents already offered to pay for medical costs I'd say they won this case even though they lost, and the social costs the lady is going to suffer from alienating the entire country that remembers her name and this case is going to serve as the "justice" in this case. Basically she tried to schmooze the system, the system really DID reject her as much as it was able, everything works fine, and the hubbaballoo about the case is really wonky. I've lived in urban neighborhoods where anyone knocking on your doors EVER would mean I'd be looking for a gun or wondering which one of my neighbors had a meth lab, and I've lived in rural areas where the presence of any callers would be strange beyond keening simply because you had acres of tree line and no neighbors for a reason.

Personally I'd just start harrassing her like the public figure she's now placed herself in the position of being is allowed to be. I'd engage in satire and speculation about her in the local papers, put her picture with the court costs up in all the private businesses within 50 miles as "news", and see what else I'm legally allowed to do to drive her out of town. There's got to be a vast allowance there, they do it with sex offenders all the time. Just treat her like a rapist and make her move to somewhere where her suspicious nature is more justifiable by the community.

Or hell, maybe rural Colorado is a scary place and I just don't have a clue. It might be. I've watched Southpark, Colorado might be JUST like that. Anal probes and cow mutilations, I'd have fits for late visitors too.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I've watched Southpark, Colorado might be JUST like that. Anal probes and cow mutilations, I'd have fits for late visitors too.

And suddenly it all makes sense! She's a real life version of Kyle's mom!

 

[barsoomcore]

You can't take away her right to take the case to court without setting a precedent and you can't arbitrarily dismiss her claim of damages just because she asked for punitive rewards as well - because it would also set up a precedent that other people would take advantage of.

Well, I for one am not trying to take away her right to take the case to court. She has every right to sue anyone she wants.

And you can NOT award her any damages without "arbitrarily" dismissing her claim. You could, for example reasonably dismiss her claim. Or you could consider her claim and decide against her.

Awarding the woman damages was a bad decision. It's bad law.

Personally I'd just start harrassing her like the public figure she's now placed herself in the position of being is allowed to be.

How has she done so? Does everyone who sues someone make themselves into a public figure? What did she do that allows others to ignore her right to privacy?

Just treat her like a rapist and make her move to somewhere where her suspicious nature is more justifiable by the community.

Or, perhaps more constructively, investigate who the judge is that made this decision and, if you determine that they're incompetent, start a campaign to have them removed. I don't see how a bunch of passive-agressive behaviour actually helps solve the fundamental problem, which is that this woman was awarded damages she was not reasonably entitled to.

 

[James Heard]

And you can NOT award her any damages without "arbitrarily" dismissing her claim. You could, for example reasonably dismiss her claim. Or you could consider her claim and decide against her.

Not without invalidating an awful lot of case law for negligent manufacturers and a bunch of other things and opening a huge can of worms for appeals cases. This is basically an issue of unintended consequences that lead to harm. She obviously proved harm, in the amount of the hospital visit (and whether or not you think that she was really harmed), and she was able to prove that there was cause (10:30 at night, someone prowling your property leaving packages and not identifying themselves clearly) for that harm. That's an awful lot more cause and an awful lot less harm than you'll see in a lot of negligence torts.

Awarding the woman damages was a bad decision. It's bad law.

No, it's not. It's good law to protect people from well meaning toy manufacturers, drug companies, and equipment suppliers who also can fairly prove that they didn't intend to maim and mutilate and kill people - but do. This is the same law applied as far as I can tell. If you drop an exception into the common law for sweet young teenage girls then eventually you'll have it as the defense used for the sweet teenage girl serial cookie poisoners - "We're cute and young, we didn't know that using radioactive flour would be a problem."

That's extreme, but it's true. I'm also betting that the girls didn't bring a serious legal defense because it was pretty stupid on the face of things, while the woman brought an ambulance chaser with an ax to grind because she was seeking a cash cow.

How has she done so? Does everyone who sues someone make themselves into a public figure? What did she do that allows others to ignore her right to privacy?

She's made the national newspapers. That opens people up to all sorts of lessening of the restrictions on invasion of privacy and raising the threshold for harrassment. It would be harrassment for photographers to wait outside your house as a nobody, but once you're in the news you're suddenly a free speech issue. I'm not saying I universally agree with the concept, but I'm willing to suggest that using that concept to one's advantage in a case like this isn't completely unethical.

Or, perhaps more constructively, investigate who the judge is that made this decision and, if you determine that they're incompetent, start a campaign to have them removed. I don't see how a bunch of passive-agressive behaviour actually helps solve the fundamental problem, which is that this woman was awarded damages she was not reasonably entitled to.

But the only reason you think they're incompetent is because they applied the law and the material facts as they were presented them. So what, you remove the judge because he upheld the law and judged according to the law and the facts of the case? Now who's being rude? "You should do your job, by violating the ethical standards of your profession because when you perform your duties as you're trained to and the law requires you to people don't like it." That's the reason the higher courts aren't elected offices, to protect them from people who want to make the judiciary into a popularity contest.

 

[reanjr]

The unfortunate part about our legal system is that it has obliterated social Darwinism.

 

[reanjr]

Does everyone live in fear down there?

Sadly, the news is designed to make you afraid of things like this. The more fear you have, the better their ratings are to see the latest horrible thing that happened seven states away but could happen to you or your children next.

On another note, people with paranoia this debilitating should be in a hospital or institution.

 

[reanjr]

No, it's not. It's good law to protect people from well meaning toy manufacturers, drug companies, and equipment suppliers who also can fairly prove that they didn't intend to maim and mutilate and kill people - but do.

I don't personally think this should qualify as negligence. They knocked on a door, and then left. That's it. That constitutes negligence?

 

[reanjr]

But I know lots of people who go to sleep around 10 each night, and I know people who leave lights on all night. So, just because the kitchen light was on doesn't mean people were up. THe girls made an assumption and they were wrong.

I work midnights. The law doesn't stop the neighbors from bringing in a jackhammer for breaking up their driveway - three days in a row.

I didn't sleep for half a week, and I still had to get on with my life.

Laws should not only apply at certain times. We have electricity and 24 hour stores. It's absolutely absurd to have laws that only apply to a portion of the populace.