All I was saying that if a lawyer works 100 hours on a huge settlement vs the same 100 hours on a small settlement, did they really do any more work to deserve that money? But by the same token a lawyer will probably half-*** a payout that will only net them $3500, vs $35,000,000
I think unintended consequences might come into play here in a counterproductive way. If there’s a fixed upper limit on damage awards, then there’s a hard number that can be assigned as a risk… meaning it can be evaluated as to whether islets cheaper to fix something, for example, or just pay off the damages when you kill someone. You or I would never make that kind of a call, but it’s been done many times before.
There's been much written and done on Tort Reform especially on caps to non-economic damages. However, the only ones who seem to think it is wrong are plaintiff attorneys in my opinion. The reason GA is so expensive is directly related to those tort costs which shutdown the industry in the 80s. Even with the GARA passed in the 90s, those costs continue to keep any growth from happening in GA. While I fully understand and appreciate the need to compensate those who have been affected by acts of negligence, I do not agree there should be a blank check involved with non-economic damages. Just because one attorney can convince an unknowing jury that Cessna or Bell designed an "unsafe" aircraft 50 years ago, I don't believe they should be able to award $100M to one person just because they have the money. I've been on both sides of this fence and think personal responsibility should be the primary qualifier and not how much is in your wallet when actions like these are taken.
According to Critical Theory, "personal responsibility" is an instrument of oppression. I wish I were kidding. And I wish Critical Theory weren't so widely and uncritically accepted. But, here we are. What I'm saying is, don't expect to get anywhere touting personal responsibility, no matter how reasonable it may be.
I do a fair amount of pro bono engineering work. So, no. (Just completed site planning and preliminary design for a school in an impoverished village in Sudan.)
Then let me clarify it: When I do something for someone without expecting anything in return, I feel good about myself. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Good, the guy who handed the gun to Baldwin already pled guilty to something, he took responsibility. The lady armorer, I really don't think she is liable, other than she should have shut the set down when Baldwin refused training on cross draw and had her excluded from the set where the guns were being used. I think a slap on the wrist for that might be in order, if you take a job like she did, you have to be ruthless when being bullied or shutdown for doing the job or face consequence. She should have taken the guns from them and locked them up until they complied with her. Baldwin did so many things wrong, it should be a guilty finding. If that happens, I don't think he'll go to jail, nor should he IMO, unless it is shown he pointed the gun at her to scare her, then f him. But he should be convicted and fined or community service.
The words in the NM involuntary manslaughter act are "without due care and circumspection." The case law on this is a bit in Baldwin's side. It really means conduct that is reckless, wanton, or willful. The case law for example shows the case of a person who inadvertently strayed over the center line in a blind hill and hit oncoming traffic as not being such. If you're really into the minutiae, you can read this law review article: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol20/iss1/4/
He was certainly reckless after the fact, when he couldn’t keep his mouth shut. His allegation that the gun just fired itself after he pulled the hammer back may come back to haunt him. By “may,” I mean “should.”
