Can we get some tort reform? Please?

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

ROLMAO Brilliant David!! You have just proven we have NO LIFE

It's funny cuz it's true.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

Plus I've always wondered this, how do you deal with a frivilous defense? Wouldn't that necessarily have to wait till the end of the case.

That's a good question....

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Is this a Good cop - Bad cop thing?

Adam's one of the good ones. I know because I let him be my facebook friend.

...
How will money make them whole?

Trust me - that's something I wonder on a weekly, often daily, basis.

 

[bbchien]

Counselors, you need to clean your own houses.....

"...but we have attorneys to feed! and it's their RIGHTS we're protecting...."

 

[flyersfan31]

Accidents happen. At least, they used to.

Why does granny have insurance? In case an accident happens.

Did the kid commit a crime? No. Stuff happens. Deal with it, Granma (and your insurers)!

 

[JesseD]

Everyone hates tort law as written until they need it. I used to think tort reform was in order, until an idiot broke 3 traffic laws and put me in:

The hospital for 14 days total with 2 surgeries that left me with 22 screws and a couple plates

Left me unable to work for 3 months

Left me unable to put pressure on my leg for 6 months

Kept me in a wheelchair for 10 months

Left me in permanent pain

Oh and nearly cost me my right leg at the knee

Bonus:

I'll need a new knee within 10 years

 

[JeffDG]

This would, however, require some comprehensive reform - including penalties against defendants that throw up all kinds of roadblocks (the proverbial, "you'll go blind on paperwork" type of defendants). I'm in favor of reforming all of that.

I can speak of one system that has loser-pays that has a great solution for this type of thing: Alberta.

In Alberta, settlement offers are special things. Let's say I sue you, David, for $20m because I slipped on your sidewalk. We argue it out, and an action is filed in the Court of Queens Bench.

A week later, you offer me $2,000 for my trouble. I say "Screw you, we're going to trial!"

Now, after tons of depositions and motions, we go to trial. The judge (no juries in civil matters there) agrees you were negligent, and sets the damages at $1,700 (I missed a couple of days of work and a doctor's visit with some really good pain pills!).

Next up there is a determination of costs. Because you offered to settle for more than what I eventually got at trial, the settlement offer is important. You owe me for my legal costs up until the settlement offer is made. But, I owe you double costs from the time of the settlement offer through the trial.

Wanna guess who'll be writing a cheque (that's how it's spelled there dammit)?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

ROLMAO Brilliant David!! You have just proven we have NO LIFE

Hey, as long as all the lawyers are in here, that means you're not out filing lawsuits. Mission accomplished.

 

[bbchien]

Jesse, you would have won under any system. Really. What happened to you was just flagrant.....

 

[AdamZ]

Is this a Good cop - Bad cop thing?


I'll take credit for rule #1 and I really believe it. I am convinced that someone's world view is systematically corrupted by law school. Either I spend to much time at PointofLaw and Overlawyered or perhaps you should start visiting them.
http://www.pointoflaw.com/
http://overlawyered.com/

[/QOUTE]

I've seen both sites. The infomation in the Manhatten Institue site ( first one) IMHO is flat out facually wrong. The second site has a history of picking the worst cases and putting them up on a Marquee, which Ironically is one of the things they say is wrong with the litigation system. So they are actually saying what good for the goose is not good for the gander.

So the system is perfect as is? Not for those of us on the receiving end of it. Even I will admit that the medical profession is in serious need of reform.

No nothing is perfect

If it makes you feel better, I am insured. Fortunately, I have never needed it. Would going bare be possible if the physician is married and living in a community property state or not?

Community Property states are odd birds and I can't speak to the laws there but even in states with tenants by the etireties rules You can still end up making the docs life miserable So married or not they are in for a serious hurting without insurance.

OK, the plaintiff's will need to sue for that much more money. Who should profit from this lady's death and why? How will money make them whole?

But it doesn't work that way. The value of the case is the value of the case. You can't ask for $10,000 more because there is a medicare lein of $10,000. Also a lot of folks get confused about the amount that you sue for. Most courts have juridictional limits. For example Anything in PA above $50,000.00 goes to Common Pleas Trial Court so to get to that court you have to allege that you have damages in excess of $50K. Doesn't mean thats what you are asking for or you will get that it just indicates the jurisdictional limit.

Counselors, you need to clean your own houses.....

"...but we have attorneys to feed! and it's their RIGHTS we're protecting...."

Mmmm my house is pretty darn clean

Everyone hates tort law as written until they need it. I used to think tort reform was in order, until an idiot broke 3 traffic laws and put me in:

The hospital for 14 days total with 2 surgeries that left me with 22 screws and a couple plates

Left me unable to work for 3 months

Left me unable to put pressure on my leg for 6 months

Kept me in a wheelchair for 10 months

Left me in permanent pain

Oh and nearly cost me my right leg at the knee

Bonus:

I'll need a new knee within 10 years

Jesse, you would have won under any system. Really. What happened to you was just flagrant.....

But heres the thing. The Insurance carrier will put a guy like jesse through the ringer. Cost him time and money and they can do that because the Insurance Company has lots of money. I have represented claims people from Insurance companies and they ALL have told us that insurance carriers have told them to deny deny deny claims and if they do about 80% of them will go away. For some reason that seems to be
ok with a lot of people.

A few years ago a local woman needed a masectomy on one breast the Surgeon removed the wrong breast that too seemed pretty flagrant. The insurance companies dragged it through the courts for years so flagrant does not mean you will get justice.

I can speak of one system that has loser-pays that has a great solution for this type of thing: Alberta.

In Alberta, settlement offers are special things. Let's say I sue you, David, for $20m because I slipped on your sidewalk. We argue it out, and an action is filed in the Court of Queens Bench.

A week later, you offer me $2,000 for my trouble. I say "Screw you, we're going to trial!"

Now, after tons of depositions and motions, we go to trial. The judge (no juries in civil matters there) agrees you were negligent, and sets the damages at $1,700 (I missed a couple of days of work and a doctor's visit with some really good pain pills!).

Next up there is a determination of costs. Because you offered to settle for more than what I eventually got at trial, the settlement offer is important. You owe me for my legal costs up until the settlement offer is made. But, I owe you double costs from the time of the settlement offer through the trial.

Wanna guess who'll be writing a cheque (that's how it's spelled there dammit)?

They do something similar to that in Philadelphia.They calculate it on a percentage of the offer vs. Verdict.

 

[Gary F]

http://www.pointoflaw.com/
http://overlawyered.com/

I've seen both sites. The infomation in the Manhatten Institue site ( first one) IMHO is flat out facually wrong. The second site has a history of picking the worst cases and putting them up on a Marquee, which Ironically is one of the things they say is wrong with the litigation system. So they are actually saying what good for the goose is not good for the gander.

I don't think so. I encourage everybody to visit these sites and decide for themselves.

Community Property states are odd birds and I can't speak to the laws there but even in states with tenants by the etireties rules You can still end up making the docs life miserable So married or not they are in for a serious hurting without insurance.

Is this officially part of the legal profession's mission statement? It should be.

But it doesn't work that way. The value of the case is the value of the case. You can't ask for $10,000 more because there is a medicare lein of $10,000. Also a lot of folks get confused about the amount that you sue for. Most courts have juridictional limits. For example Anything in PA above $50,000.00 goes to Common Pleas Trial Court so to get to that court you have to allege that you have damages in excess of $50K. Doesn't mean thats what you are asking for or you will get that it just indicates the jurisdictional limit.

That is one reason I do not understand what the elderly lady's estate expects. Medicare probably paid well over $100,000 for her medical bills. How much do they expect to get?

Mmmm my house is pretty darn clean

Yours maybe, but not your profession's. Many, if not most engineers, physicians and non-lawyer professionals do not believe that we are well served by the current system. What is your opinion on class action lawsuits? The "victims" are often offered worthless coupons (most are never redeemed) while the lawyers make out like bandits. This deprives companies of needed capital that could be used for R&D or employee benefits etc. What about disability lawsuit mills where lawyers shake down small businesses? Lawsuit abuse will thrive unless ethical attorneys permit reform.

But heres the thing. The Insurance carrier will put a guy like jesse through the ringer. Cost him time and money and they can do that because the Insurance Company has lots of money. I have represented claims people from Insurance companies and they ALL have told us that insurance carriers have told them to deny deny deny claims and if they do about 80% of them will go away. For some reason that seems to be
ok with a lot of people.

I never argued that lawyers are not necessary, only that the system is biased for the benefit of the profession. Insurance companies have a low degree of public respect, only a notch or two above lawyers.

A few years ago a local woman needed a masectomy on one breast the Surgeon removed the wrong breast that too seemed pretty flagrant. The insurance companies dragged it through the courts for years so flagrant does not mean you will get justice.

I know a surgeon who screwed up. He owned up to it and settled. A year later he went fishing with the guy. I beleive in personal and professional responsibility. I might be easier to pull off if lawyers did not "end up making the docs life miserable"

Lawsuit abuse is having a severe deleterious effect on General Aviation. Many manufactures are being blamed for accidents that are really the result of pilot error. Several companies have gone out of business due to the cost of lawsuits. The relatively low numbers of items produced and low profit margins can not sustain the astronomical awards.

 

[mantakos]

... Why does granny have insurance? In case an accident happens...

So do we really want a system in which the party who causes the loss is wholly immune to any liability as long as the party who is damaged is insured?

Should this apply to car accidents, as well? If I'm drunk and I crash into your car, your car is destroyed and you rack up some major hospital bills, but you're insured, should I walk away with no financial responsibility?

Everybody hates all this liability stuff, but it serves a purpose, because there are those tasked with making decisions that balance how much they invest into safety against how much these investments will yield savings in reduced liability costs. If you dramatically reduce their liability, they are going to make corresponding reductions in how much they invest in safety.

There are no accidents, just low probability events that inevitably occur as the result of a large number of experiments.
-harry

 

[flyersfan31]

So do we really want a system in which the party who causes the loss is wholly immune to any liability as long as the party who is damaged is insured?

Is that what I said?

 

[mantakos]

Is that what I said?

Yes. You said that the insurance company of the victim should be responsible for the costs, and the perpetrator who caused the accident should have no liability.

Or do you constrain your solution to details specific to this case? If so, then what details?
-harry

 

[flyersfan31]

Yes. You said that the insurance company of the victim should be responsible for the costs, and the perpetrator who caused the accident should have no liability.

Or do you constrain your solution to details specific to this case? If so, then what details?
-harry

Yeah, I was just talking about this case. Kid loses control, bonks someone on the sidewalk. Unfortunately, granny got hurt. She has insurance. It's an accident. Full stop. IMHO. I'm making no grand assertions about the insurance industry, tort reform, the legal system or anything else.

As an aside, unless the parents have an umbrella policy, how can Granny Insco go after the parents insurance? Their health policy won't cover it. I don't think homeowners would, and certainly not renters. Auto has no applicability. This money would be coming straight out of the parents' pockets.

 

[mantakos]

Yeah, I was just talking about this case.

Note that, according to the article, it's the old lady's estate that's suing, not an insurance company.

I think it's natural for us all to say "sue a 4-year-old for crashing her bike! Preposterous!" And that sentiment is valid. But so is "this little old lady didn't do anything wrong, she was just walking down the street, why should she take the loss?"

Again, if there are losses involved, then _somebody_ has to take them. So who should that be? The kid doesn't have any money (which is, I guess, why the parents' lawyers are trying to pin the liability on the kid), so the choices are "the parents", "the old lady", "the insurance company", and "society".

The answer shouldn't be the parents because they weren't being bad parents, sometimes kids just get into accidents.

The answer shouldn't be the old lady because she didn't do anything wrong, she was just walking down the street. She's a victim.

The answer shouldn't be the insurance company because neither they nor their customer did anything wrong, and the finger shouldn't be pointed at them simply because they're perceived to have deeper pockets.

The answer shouldn't be "society" because if we relieve people of responsibility for their actions then they're going to change their behavior appropriately.

So whatever the answer is, it's going to be one we can criticize. But one of these answers has to be the correct one. Seems to me that "the parents" is the obvious choice.

Note that the legal answer and the "how people should behave" answer aren't necessarily the same.

As an aside, unless the parents have an umbrella policy, how can Granny Insco go after the parents insurance?...

If the estate can get a judge to rule in their favor against the parents, then the estates' lawyers can (with a lot of effort) extract that money from the parents' assets.
-harry

 

[woodstock]

I'll take credit for rule #1 and I really believe it. I am convinced that someone's world view is systematically corrupted by law school.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=654981&postcount=45

 

[AdamZ]

I don't think so. I encourage everybody to visit these sites and decide for themselves.

Ok we can respectfully agree to disagree.

Is this officially part of the legal profession's mission statement? It should be.

Now come on you know thats not why I wrote that. I was stating why it would IMHO be fool hardy for a doc not to be insured.

That is one reason I do not understand what the elderly lady's estate expects. Medicare probably paid well over $100,000 for her medical bills. How much do they expect to get?

I'm not sure either because you can't get reliable information from an article. Chances are the author will spin it or just not report all the facts properly. One really needs to review the legal pleadings. My guess is that if she were injured ( I think it was reported she broke her hip) Then the estate is probably trying to recover for her pain and suffering while she lived. Its a money that she would have been entitled to or at least have a claim to just like any other receivable. My guess is medicare may not have paid all of her bills and that gap would also be recoverable.

Also just so you understand I'm not advocating that the claim agains the kid is a good thing. The claim against the parents may be appropriate but I don't have enough info to say one way or the other. If mom let Junior race his bike along a busy sidewalk in NYC then she could very well be liable if it was in a park setting eh different story. I remember once I was in Outback Steak house( long before I started watching my cholesterol) These parents let their kids run around the dinning room. 5 year old kid slams into a waitress and deserts, utensils and coffee go flying. had someone gotten burt or hurt mom and dad could have an issue for not properly supervising their kid, I'd have a very very hard time holding the kid legally responsible.

Yours maybe, but not your profession's. Many, if not most engineers, physicians and non-lawyer professionals do not believe that we are well served by the current system. What is your opinion on class action lawsuits? The "victims" are often offered worthless coupons (most are never redeemed) while the lawyers make out like bandits. This deprives companies of needed capital that could be used for R&D or employee benefits etc. What about disability lawsuit mills where lawyers shake down small businesses? Lawsuit abuse will thrive unless ethical attorneys permit reform.

I disagree that the profession's house is not in order. Our ethical guidelines are incredibly strict. In my state The disciplinary board has its own set of attorneys to prosecute other attorneys for ethical breaches. Our medical societies have no such program and won't adopt one. I don't handle med mal cases and my father and best friend are physcians and I can't count the number of docs I've represented over the years. When I ask many of them ( not my dad and friend but others) about why they don't police themselves strictly their response ironically is well thats what the legal system is for. I recall one case where a anasthesiologist left an OR to attend to a personal matter outside the hospital he left a nurse anesthesist to attend to the Pt in his OR as well as another OR sadly some bad stuff happened to the Pt ansthesia related while the doc was out running a personal errand. They guy obviously got sued but he kept his hospital privleges, Med society did nothing and his license was not touched. folks see that kind of stuff and they get really angry and 21 years in the profession and I can tell you angry people want vengance. Diffusing the anger is a great way to prevent or minimize lawsuits.

As for the second part of your question regarding Mills well I think of the term mill as being a volume practice I'm personally not big d a big fan of those but I'm not sure what you mean about them shaking down small business'. Regardless I'm opposed to using the leagal system for any improper use. I've been involved in defending businesses that were sued by competetors to gain access to my clients propritary information. I think there should be sanctions involved for such activity.

As for the question on class action well its one of those things that does sit well with many but here is the delemia. Class actions were designed to provide for a means of redressing a greivance where individual lawsuits would be cost prohibitive. The work and expense involved in them is crushing.

For example say a business be it a bank, drug company, Airline or whatever routinely overcharges a customer $1.00. No one in their right mind is going to take on a goliath for $1.00 but the company that overcharges does this to One Million Customers. Well then that minor $1.00 over charge makes them a handsome sum of money. So the business says hey this is great we can make a millon extra and no one is going to do anything about it. (Reall the scene in the Superman Movie where Richard Prior works for a bank or something and figurs that he can take 1/2 a cent from every transaction. He realized the bank won't pursue 1/2 a cent but if he takes one from every transaction he will be rich)Thats not exactly fair so how does it get stopped? Well someone notices that he is getting ripped off for a buck every year or month or whatever and goes to a class action attorney who develops the case and trys to get a class qualified. In theory the attorney is representing a class of hundres or thousands of people. If he were representing one person who got shafted for a million dollars he make a good fee on that. In a class action he is representing a million people who got shafted for a dollar. The lead plaintiff can be awarded a substantial amount of money the rest of the class memebers may get a few bucks or coupons for an airline the value is often close to what they may have lost but if not for the class action they would have gotten nothing at all.

With class actions people concentrat on the disparity of the attorneys fee and the amount awarded to a class memeber what they neglect to look at is that the class member usually did not loose enough to make an individual suit viable.

I know a surgeon who screwed up. He owned up to it and settled. A year later he went fishing with the guy. I beleive in personal and professional responsibility. I might be easier to pull off if lawyers did not "end up making the docs life miserable"

That is an awesome result and my bar association has taken the lead in trying to increase communications to effect such results. There is also a great program that was started in Kentucky I believe where when a doc or hospital screws up they fess up apologize do what they can to make the person whole and everyone moves on. It works well and has some promise. Many of these programs are facilitated by attorneys. I think the number one reason that docs get sued is poor communications with patients. I have seen docs refuse to speak with patients after they have done something wrong wont' even return their calls. So what happens is the patient becomes angry and frustrated and when they are good and ****ed off go off and sue. The other reason is other docs. Ya gotta love it when a patient walks into doc number two or three and they say to him or her. What? Why the heck did Doc #1 do that? I wouldn't have done that. I'm a beliver in SHS that Sheis Happens Syndrome and sometimes its no ones fault but communications like the ones I've described dilute that theory.

Lawsuit abuse is having a severe deleterious effect on General Aviation. Many manufactures are being blamed for accidents that are really the result of pilot error. Several companies have gone out of business due to the cost of lawsuits. The relatively low numbers of items produced and low profit margins can not sustain the astronomical awards.

Interesting point. A lot of docs here have requested that their damages be capped. I've always wondered why a med mal case or aviation case is more sensational than say a auto accident. I mean after all your just as dead from a fatal medical error as you are from a failed AI in IMC or Spin accident as you are from the guy that slams into you from running a stop sign. I will tell you that I don't belive its an insurance or deep pocket issue because the Jury is never allowed to know what is or isn' there dollar wise.

 

[JesseD]

Jesse, you would have won under any system. Really. What happened to you was just flagrant.....

Not to disagree with you, but I had to name every insurance he had. He was retired, in a hurry, and in Wisconsin you can't sue someone out of there house. He had 25000 in car insurance, no attachable income, or attachable "wealth" for me to take. My leg cost over 90000, and that was just to get it put together, not counting the new one I'll need.

 

[bbchien]

Jesse, so you didn't have health insurance. Oh. Well, you're going to be compelled to buy it soon (never mind the Virginia Federal Court decision). Usually the Health Insurance carrier fixes you and then THEIR army of attornies extracts what they can from the guy...

Ok we can respectfully agree to disagree. I recall one case where a anasthesiologist left an OR to attend to a personal matter outside the hospital he left a nurse anesthesist to attend to the Pt in his OR as well as another OR sadly some bad stuff happened to the Pt ansthesia related while the doc was out running a personal errand. They guy obviously got sued but he kept his hospital privleges, Med society did nothing and his license was not touched.

That's because his hopsital accorded full privelages to CRNAs, so by definition there was an adequate provider. The AANA has campaigned for this for years....lowering the standard of care. I can parade quite the Illinois list of attorney trash, too if you would like.

 

[Gary F]

Ok we can respectfully agree to disagree.

Fair enough, but those sites document things very well. Lawyers also tend to cherry pick cases to advertise like cutting off the wrong part when most cases are not so straightforward.
http://overlawyered.com/

Now come on you know thats not why I wrote that. I was stating why it would IMHO be fool hardy for a doc not to be insured.

I know, sorry. I was not being fair but taking things out of context is a common trick used by lawyers.

I'm not sure either because you can't get reliable information from an article. Chances are the author will spin it or just not report all the facts properly. One really needs to review the legal pleadings. My guess is that if she were injured ( I think it was reported she broke her hip) Then the estate is probably trying to recover for her pain and suffering while she lived. Its a money that she would have been entitled to or at least have a claim to just like any other receivable. My guess is medicare may not have paid all of her bills and that gap would also be recoverable.

Also just so you understand I'm not advocating that the claim agains the kid is a good thing. The claim against the parents may be appropriate but I don't have enough info to say one way or the other. If mom let Junior race his bike along a busy sidewalk in NYC then she could very well be liable if it was in a park setting eh different story. I remember once I was in Outback Steak house( long before I started watching my cholesterol) These parents let their kids run around the dinning room. 5 year old kid slams into a waitress and deserts, utensils and coffee go flying. had someone gotten burt or hurt mom and dad could have an issue for not properly supervising their kid, I'd have a very very hard time holding the kid legally responsible.

I do not like the idea of profiting from somebody else's death or pain and suffering and it looks like that might be happening here. If they are only trying to recover unreimbursed medical expenses then not as bad if they really need the money. I doubt that it would be worth it to file a lawsuit for that reason.

I disagree that the profession's house is not in order. Our ethical guidelines are incredibly strict. In my state The disciplinary board has its own set of attorneys to prosecute other attorneys for ethical breaches. Our medical societies have no such program and won't adopt one. I don't handle med mal cases and my father and best friend are physcians and I can't count the number of docs I've represented over the years. When I ask many of them ( not my dad and friend but others) about why they don't police themselves strictly their response ironically is well thats what the legal system is for. I recall one case where a anasthesiologist left an OR to attend to a personal matter outside the hospital he left a nurse anesthesist to attend to the Pt in his OR as well as another OR sadly some bad stuff happened to the Pt ansthesia related while the doc was out running a personal errand. They guy obviously got sued but he kept his hospital privleges, Med society did nothing and his license was not touched. folks see that kind of stuff and they get really angry and 21 years in the profession and I can tell you angry people want vengance. Diffusing the anger is a great way to prevent or minimize lawsuits.

As for the second part of your question regarding Mills well I think of the term mill as being a volume practice I'm personally not big d a big fan of those but I'm not sure what you mean about them shaking down small business'. Regardless I'm opposed to using the leagal system for any improper use. I've been involved in defending businesses that were sued by competetors to gain access to my clients propritary information. I think there should be sanctions involved for such activity.

I could not disagree more. I think you are being very charitable to many members of your profession. I wonder why so few legal malpractice cases are filed. Are lawyers that infallible and ethical? Why don't you see the corrupting influence of the huge sums of money involved? Why do attorneys get to decide themselves how well the system works? Most other professionals hold the legal system in varying degrees of contempt. Few lawyers have ever designed or built or marketed or sold anything but you want to profit obscenely when anything goes wrong. The world would be a better place if somebody had to work in another profession for 10 years before entering law school.

As for the question on class action well its one of those things that does sit well with many but here is the delemia. Class actions were designed to provide for a means of redressing a greivance where individual lawsuits would be cost prohibitive. The work and expense involved in them is crushing.

For example say a business be it a bank, drug company, Airline or whatever routinely overcharges a customer $1.00. No one in their right mind is going to take on a goliath for $1.00 but the company that overcharges does this to One Million Customers. Well then that minor $1.00 over charge makes them a handsome sum of money. So the business says hey this is great we can make a millon extra and no one is going to do anything about it. (Reall the scene in the Superman Movie where Richard Prior works for a bank or something and figurs that he can take 1/2 a cent from every transaction. He realized the bank won't pursue 1/2 a cent but if he takes one from every transaction he will be rich)Thats not exactly fair so how does it get stopped? Well someone notices that he is getting ripped off for a buck every year or month or whatever and goes to a class action attorney who develops the case and trys to get a class qualified. In theory the attorney is representing a class of hundres or thousands of people. If he were representing one person who got shafted for a million dollars he make a good fee on that. In a class action he is representing a million people who got shafted for a dollar. The lead plaintiff can be awarded a substantial amount of money the rest of the class memebers may get a few bucks or coupons for an airline the value is often close to what they may have lost but if not for the class action they would have gotten nothing at all.

With class actions people concentrat on the disparity of the attorneys fee and the amount awarded to a class memeber what they neglect to look at is that the class member usually did not loose enough to make an individual suit viable.

One solution is to require class members to opt in. I have been informed that I am a member of several class action suits, at least 2 of them against VW for my Passat. They have not helped me, only hurt VW. All of the class action suits filed on my behalf have been pure BS.

That is an awesome result and my bar association has taken the lead in trying to increase communications to effect such results. There is also a great program that was started in Kentucky I believe where when a doc or hospital screws up they fess up apologize do what they can to make the person whole and everyone moves on. It works well and has some promise. Many of these programs are facilitated by attorneys. I think the number one reason that docs get sued is poor communications with patients. I have seen docs refuse to speak with patients after they have done something wrong wont' even return their calls. So what happens is the patient becomes angry and frustrated and when they are good and ****ed off go off and sue. The other reason is other docs. Ya gotta love it when a patient walks into doc number two or three and they say to him or her. What? Why the heck did Doc #1 do that? I wouldn't have done that. I'm a beliver in SHS that Sheis Happens Syndrome and sometimes its no ones fault but communications like the ones I've described dilute that theory.

It's helped keep me out of trouble. I was nearly the victim of medical malpractice. An ER doc wanted to send me home when I needed surgery. I convinced him to get a CT. He called the surgeon (the same one who I mentioned in my last post) who took me to the OR and saved my life. My wife would not have sued the ER physician (I hope) as this would have been an understandable mistake. My condition was not recognized by the ER doc as it was unusual, the surgeon had only seen 3 cases in 30 years.

Interesting point. A lot of docs here have requested that their damages be capped. I've always wondered why a med mal case or aviation case is more sensational than say a auto accident. I mean after all your just as dead from a fatal medical error as you are from a failed AI in IMC or Spin accident as you are from the guy that slams into you from running a stop sign. I will tell you that I don't belive its an insurance or deep pocket issue because the Jury is never allowed to know what is or isn' there dollar wise.

I am not as interested in a damage cap as a more fair process. I am deeply concerned about the effect the legal system on general aviation. A failed AI in IMC is my responsibility to deal with. If I can't fly partial panel or deal with a mechanical problem, then why ruin a manufacturer? It is impossible to make something that can't fail. I try to minimize risk but I accept the residual risk.

 

[AdamZ]

...
That's because his hopsital accorded full privelages to CRNAs, so by definition there was an adequate provider. The AANA has campaigned for this for years....lowering the standard of care. I can parade quite the Illinois list of attorney trash, too if you would like.

Of course I agree there are bad stories in the legal profession as well, Bruce. As an attorney they anger me to no end. But my point was that the ethical consequences to some in the medical profession seem to be somewhat lax in certain situations. Look I'm not a doc but to me a doc leaving the OR to tend to a personal errand ( cashing a check I think) and leaving a single CRNA to cover a few ORs at once should call for a spanking by his licenscing authority.

Fair enough, but those sites document things very well. Lawyers also tend to cherry pick cases to advertise like cutting off the wrong part when most cases are not so straightforward.
http://overlawyered.com/


I know, sorry. I was not being fair but taking things out of context is a common trick used by lawyers.

Few lawyers have ever designed or built or marketed or sold anything but you want to profit obscenely when anything goes wrong. The world would be a better place if somebody had to work in another profession for 10 years before entering law school.

I'd be happy just to make a good living :wink2: But I agree 100% that prior life expereince would make someone a much better attorney. Don't know that 10 years is necessary but I agree its a good idea.

One solution is to require class members to opt in. I have been informed that I am a member of several class action suits, at least 2 of them against VW for my Passat. They have not helped me, only hurt VW. All of the class action suits filed on my behalf have been pure BS.

Thats an option I have opted out of classes on occasion.

It's helped keep me out of trouble. I was nearly the victim of medical malpractice. An ER doc wanted to send me home when I needed surgery. I convinced him to get a CT. He called the surgeon (the same one who I mentioned in my last post) who took me to the OR and saved my life. My wife would not have sued the ER physician (I hope) as this would have been an understandable mistake. My condition was not recognized by the ER doc as it was unusual, the surgeon had only seen 3 cases in 30 years.

Amazing what ills good communication can cure isn't it?

And that also falls under my theory of Sheis Happens. hear hoof beats looks for horses not zebras kind of thinking which is totally appropriate.

I am not as interested in a damage cap as a more fair process. I am deeply concerned about the effect the legal system on general aviation. A failed AI in IMC is my responsibility to deal with. If I can't fly partial panel or deal with a mechanical problem, then why ruin a manufacturer? It is impossible to make something that can't fail. I try to minimize risk but I accept the residual risk.

I don't disagree.

 

[flyersfan31]

The answer shouldn't be the insurance company because neither they nor their customer did anything wrong, and the finger shouldn't be pointed at them simply because they're perceived to have deeper pockets.

Although that situation is precisely why people buy insurance, because stuff happens. Suck it up, cupcakes. You wrote the policy, now deliver the goods.

If the estate can get a judge to rule in their favor against the parents, then the estates' lawyers can (with a lot of effort) extract that money from the parents' assets.
-harry

Yes, but it was claimed in an earlier post that it was all insurance money, so no big deal. I posit that insurance is not involved, and further, that it is wrong for them to chase down the parents' assets. The 4.75yr old did the crime (or so the judge ruled), make her do the time. If she can be held negligent (an absolutely ludicrous notion to anyone who has ever owned a 4.75yr old) then that's where the beef should lie.

 

[JesseD]

Dr Bruce,

I have insurance and pay quite a bit for it because I'm self-employed. Still, who covers the 200$ an hour I lost for 6 months. I lost that contract for two terms because I was unable to work. I had to front everything for my family's bills, med insurance doesn't cover that. Or should the other guy have gotten out of my financial losses, the extreme pain I suffered for a year, or even permanent pain I suffer now? I won't even delve into the activities I can't do anymore. I just count myself lucky that I has the money to cover everything.

Lawyers suck, until you need one to recover your losses.

 

[bbchien]

Jesse, you seem to be unable to understand that the current system is NOT the only system in which you could have been compensated. Really.

I'm sad that you were injured, I'm happy that you were compensated, but the current system has excesses that will bankrupt itself.

It will also have abusers (like the driver) who hide behind being judgement-proof (or nearly so).

 

[Ghery]

So do we really want a system in which the party who causes the loss is wholly immune to any liability as long as the party who is damaged is insured?

I believe that is called "no fault" and some states have it. And I'm not a believer in such a system. I know we don't have it here in Washington.

 

[Gary F]

I believe that is called "no fault" and some states have it. And I'm not a believer in such a system. I know we don't have it here in Washington.

I think that no-fault only applies to property damage, not bodily injury.

 

[Ghery]

I think that no-fault only applies to property damage, not bodily injury.

Possibly. I haven't lived in a no-fault state, so I haven't had to deal with that question. All my fender bender and injury accidents have been in Washington, and the party at fault pays, although I also carry uninsured motorist insurance in case the clown doesn't have insurance.

 

[mantakos]

Although that situation is precisely why people buy insurance, because stuff happens.

As we know, this suit wasn't brought by an insurance company. But if it was, then insurance would have done exactly what people buy it for, namely to protect themselves. People don't buy insurance to protect the people who victimize them.

... The 4.75yr old did the crime (or so the judge ruled), make her do the time...

Okay, then your answer to the question of "who should pay" is apparently the victim, because the child obviously has no money.
-harry

 

[bbchien]

I can see tort reform is NOT going to come from the attorney-class.

 

[Everskyward]

Yes, but it was claimed in an earlier post that it was all insurance money, so no big deal. I posit that insurance is not involved, and further, that it is wrong for them to chase down the parents' assets. The 4.75yr old did the crime (or so the judge ruled), make her do the time. If she can be held negligent (an absolutely ludicrous notion to anyone who has ever owned a 4.75yr old) then that's where the beef should lie.

How about if we change the situation and hypothetically make it a 17.75 year old. Instead of riding a bicycle she is driving under the influence and has an accident which injures her passengers. Should the parents be responsible then?

 

[TMetzinger]

How about if we change the situation and hypothetically make it a 17.75 year old. Instead of riding a bicycle she is driving under the influence and has an accident which injures her passengers. Should the parents be responsible then?

First - driving a car normally requires liabilty insurance. And her passengers chose to be in the car with a drunk driver.
Second - driving under the influence is a crime.

You've made HUGE changes in the underlying facts.

 

[Gary F]

I disagree that the profession's house is not in order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

 

[alaskaflyer]

I can see tort reform is NOT going to come from the attorney-class.

Well it certainly shouldn't come from the judgement prone either. What does that look like?

Sorry but tort reform seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, too often.

 

[alaskaflyer]

The purpose of tort law is to make the victim whole and to punish bad behavior with an eye towards prevention.

New Zealand has a national compensation fund. I'm no expert but it seems to be the ultimate "reform." it's unclear to me how negligent conduct is curtailed or punished. I do know people drive like monkeys on meth and Australia with what I believe is a similar compensation system is even worse.

 

[JeffDG]

The purpose of tort law is to make the victim whole and to punish bad behavior with an eye towards prevention.

New Zealand has a national compensation fund. I'm no expert but it seems to be the ultimate "reform." it's unclear to me how negligent conduct is curtailed or punished. I do know people drive like monkeys on meth and Australia with what I believe is a similar compensation system is even worse.

No...the purpose of the civil law system is to make victims whole. It's the purpose of the criminal law system to punish bad behaviour.

Using the civil law system for punishment bypasses the protections inherent in the criminal system for the accused, like presumption of innocence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Using the civil system for punishment is a perversion of the legal system.

 

[SCCutler]

Note that, according to the article, it's the old lady's estate that's suing, not an insurance company....

The insurance carrier is subrogating here - they have to sue in the name of the insured, because the person was injured, not her insurance carrier, and the presumptive wrong-doer did not harm the insurance carrier- they harmed the insured.

 

[Gary F]

No...the purpose of the civil law system is to make victims whole. It's the purpose of the criminal law system to punish bad behaviour.

Using the civil law system for punishment bypasses the protections inherent in the criminal system for the accused, like presumption of innocence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Using the civil system for punishment is a perversion of the legal system.

Another difference between civil and criminal proceedings is that the burden of proof in a criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt and civil court it is a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

No...the purpose of the civil law system is to make victims whole. It's the purpose of the criminal law system to punish bad behaviour.

Using the civil law system for punishment bypasses the protections inherent in the criminal system for the accused, like presumption of innocence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Using the civil system for punishment is a perversion of the legal system.

I agree.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this earlier, but the effect is to impose a lesser burden in imposing punishment (that is, preponderance, instead of BRD).

 

[steingar]

However bad our legal system is, it is better than me seeking some sort of personal retribution for perceived damages. That's how it worked in lots of societies throughout history, and results were far less than pretty.