Tom,

The answer is quite simple, especially in my case. The credit card merchant provider has no contract with me and is also operating against his agreement with VISA which I am protected through; therefore, whatever he sues me for he should have to pay me an equal amount when I win. So, if you sue me for $30k for something frivolous, you not only lose, but pay a $30k penalty. I could care less how much attorney fees are. They would be zero in this case since he would not sue knowing he has a low chance of winning, but since it costs him very little to sue me (since he is an attorney himself) he does not mind sueing everyone to see what he can get. This has went on for nearly 2 years now with nothing but money being spent to "protect" me from this leech. I have had enough of it.

Having a conservative if not libertarian political bent, not an attorney but with several family members who are, I view this entire process much as I do the ACLU: I may not agree with them, but thank God they exist.

Quite often people will misquote the Shakespearian stanza " . . . first kill all the attorneys"

But what precedes the line is formula taking the peoples freedom away.

May not always agree with some of cases, but sure glad the ability exists.

As Tom said,

Peace bro's

If litigation was indeed a significant driver of product safety, then products marketed exclusively in countries that don't have a US style litigation system should be far less safe than products produced or marketed in the US. That is not the case.

Since we're on the rabbit trail.....

I'm Board Certified and currently practicing both OB/GYN and anesthesiology. Few people have more exposure to liability than I have.

But I don't think "loser pays" is a good solution. In a loser pays situation, the risk is disproportionately borne by the shallower pocket. Are you going to sue General Motors, your state, or the guy who hit you in his Bentley when you know you'd have to cover their fees if you lost? Such a system would only encourage the side with the apparently better case to spend even more. Bank of America can afford to pay their experts and yours if they lose. Can you? "Loser pays" hurts the little guy and doesn't do anything to discourage predatory lawyering.

And, while nobody hates "the Lawyers" more than I do, they're only the ushers in this unholy church. The problem starts and ends with the plaintiffs. In between there are lawyers, who we've talked about, insurance companies, who we gripe about incessantly, judges, who are largely politicians looking for a way to make a buck without working, and juries, made up of people who aren't smart enough to evade jury duty.

No strategy will fix this problem; it's cultural. And, as the old saw goes, "Culture eats strategy for lunch."

Amen, Stuart..

If litigation was indeed a significant driver of product safety, then products marketed exclusively in countries that don't have a US style litigation system should be far less safe than products produced or marketed in the US. That is not the case.

If litigation was indeed a significant driver of product safety, then products marketed exclusively in countries that don't have a US style litigation system should be far less safe than products produced or marketed in the US. That is not the case.

Guys,

Here is the point you are all missing:

What was the INTENT of the people you are thinking about suing? Was it Cirrus's INTENT to build an airplane that people would kill themselves in? Why is it THEIR fault that some guy over his head flew into clouds? If I buy a chainsaw and cut off my arm because Stihl gave me no training is it then obviously their INTENT to harm me?

Same goes for cars. Is it Ford's INTENT to kill me when the airbag fails to deploy or the car is too small and I get run over by a semi? Or is it their INTENT to kill me because they make a car that has a top speed faster than legal speed limits and I lose control at a high rate of speed?

Was it Beechcraft's INTENT to build an airplane that they knew would kill doctors and lawyers?

If someone is playing golf on the golf course in my Back Yard and hits me in the head on a tee shot was it's his INTENT to kill me? If so, then it seems plausible that the golf club manufacturer and the ball manufacturer share this liability as well since they did not provide training and sufficient warnings.

It comes down to this: BAD STUFF HAPPENS ALL THE TIME - GET OVER IT! If someone has an accident and hurts you then it is just that, an accident. Do you really want to make them pay and their family suffer for this? Was it their INTENT to harm you. This is what your insurance is for. I have enough life insurance to cover my family if I die by any means. For less than $1,500/yr my family lives a great lifestyle if I die. The last thing I would want my family to do is sue some poor guy for something accidental. Now, if he had INTENT, then that is a different story. Unfortunately for lawyers, most people do not INTEND to hurt people, so they have to villianize the person or corporation to make money. This is why you pay stupid money for airplanes and parts. Lawsuits have only made them more expensive. The MARKET has made them safer!

I don't know much about this legal stuff and I agree with Todd most of the time. But I think you're confusing criminal and civil liability. If Stihl's intent was to amputate your arm, they've assaulted you -- a criminal act. OTOH, if they build a chainsaw that turns razor blades at 14,000 rpms and has no guards, which they market as a preschool toy, they've been negligent. A lack of intent doesn't prove a lack of negligence. Negligence is and should be compensatable.

God help me, I'm arguing the lawyers' side here.....

Stuart,

I agree. If they truly market a chainsaw as a child's toy then I agree that they have INTENT to harm; however, if they build a chainsaw without guards why is that intent and compensation needed? It is a chainsaw!!! Does you plane have a guard around the propeller? How much safety equipment is enough? How much training is enough? How many warnings are enough? NEVER, in the eyes of an attorney. If a man drives a jackhammer through his foot is the manufacturer liable because their is no guard?

Paul, here's one. Took the picture in Berlin.

I would like about 10 minutes with the "hammer." We would see how tough he really is.

One thing for sure, here on BT, we all have impassioned and definitive opinions on how someone else is screwing up our lives. There isn't one poster here that the rank and file American feels sorry for. That, we all have in common.

Wow, that's the truth.

Tom, I'll make you a deal: on Thursday in Oshkosh, I will say something to you that could be interpreted as expressing sympathy. I'll expect you to reciprocate..

Looking forward to it Arlen. I am going to cry myself all the way to OSH thinking about the bum deal I got from the Big Guy upstairs. Actually, a tragedy for all of us Beechcraft drivers.

Think what we would be flying to OSH is someone else wasn't screwing up our lives.