In Britian, You Sue and Lose, You Pay

I've heard people, like Dennis Prager, who think we should adopt England's policy on lawsuits: If the party doing the suing loses, they have to cover the costs for both sides. It's believed this will cut WAY down on frivolous lawsuits.


Okay, so even though it would cut down on frivolous lawsuits, don't you think it will cut down on legitimate lawsuits as well? Especially if the people or business you're thinking of suing has a bunch of cash, thus enabling them to hire a dream team.

When people start saying they need to cut down on "frivolous" lawsuits, what they usually mean is cut down lawsuits against their side. Frivolous suits can be dispensed with fairly easily. It's the non-frivolous suits that worry people. It's my understanding that England also prohibits contingent fees. If this were the case in America, things would be much worse. Insurance companies would NEVER (Seldom) pay. Medical malpractice kills many more people than doctors want to admit. Right now it is nearly impossible to win a suit against a doctor. And doctors are terrified of being sued. Imagine if they couldn't be sued. For instance, in a non-frivolous med mal case, doctors win about 80% of the time in front of juries. Costs for the plaintiff are often over 100,000. That's costs alone, i.e. experts, depositions, copies, whatever. So hey, let's stick the parents of a permanently brain injured kid who will require lifetime care with some more burdens. The jury already zipped them because the doc was only negligent (juries forgive negligence by docs usually; it takes reckless, horrific conduct to win usually). Put yourself in the position of some $6/hour worker maimed from idiotic conduct. Workers comp laws already eliminate most of the people you can sue, but say you have a lawsuit that's not barred. You already can't pay for your necessary artificial leg and periodic surgery for the rest of your life. Now you have to pay the costs of the negligent party. Uh, no. No, I'll let Ford defend the Pinto and insurance companies defend their claims practices against the occasional skilled lawyer. For every ridiculous verdict the insurace companies whine about (some of which are reduced on appeal, other times the insurance groups don't tell all the facts) there are plenty of verdicts that do great injustice by not awarding adequate recoveries to horribly injured people. They don't publicize these as much. Sometimes, but not as much.

what you say in the medical malpractice field may very well be true. i dont know too much about it. but in the personal injury field especially in auto case in new york, most of the cases in my opinion are either outright frauds or are grossly overexaggerated. in these cases i would support the british rule. in most cases in new york it would be the insurer that pays the bill anyway since they lose more often than they win, at least in new york city.


Pat

Some things are better in New York.:-) Around here, it is very hard to settle a small auto case. (FWIW, I havn't done many in my career. I may do more. My wife does a lot of PI though and I hear about various goings on.) The insurance companies just won't pay out valid claims without a fight. I grant that some soft-tissue cases are arguable, but you have insurance companies refusing to pay pretty reasonable amounts in a lot of cases. Idaho just passed a new law on small lawsuits that can shift payment in some circumstances. I am not that familiar with it as it has not yet taken effect. I don't think it will be too bad as a lot of trial lawyers like it; i.e. it may be better than the idiotic "tort reform" measures we have now.

HDPM has (as usual) given a thoughtful and lucid response.


As for me, if Dennis Prager is in favor of it, that's reason enough to oppose it. He has one of the great minds of the 1940s.