Outside View: Stop lawsuit abuse


By Victor E. Schwartz & Cary Silverman
A UPI Outside View commentary


Washington, DC, Jul. 13 (UPI) -- Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem in
this country. It denies access to medicine. It discourages doctors
from continuing in their profession. It causes good products to be
removed from the market. It unreasonably drives up costs of other
products. Lawsuit abuse can be a major problem for large businesses;
it can be devastating for small businesses.

There are two principal causes of lawsuit abuse. Both are addressed in
important new legislation recently introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith,
R-Texas, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004.

The first major cause of lawsuit abuse that is especially troublesome
for small business is frivolous claims. Frivolous claims have no basis
in either fact or law. But they are costly. A recent survey by the
nation's largest small business group, the National Federation of
Independent Business, indicates that liability costs rank second only
to health insurance.

One could imagine that those who bring frivolous claims would suffer
some adverse consequences, but they do not. A lawyer can file a claim
against a restaurant, even though his client never dined there. A
lawyer can file a claim against a school where his "client" was not
really a victim, but actually caused chaos that led to his injury. A
lawyer can file a claim under absurd theories, such as a claim against
a theatre for "emotional harm" because the management ran out of
tickets. Lawyers who do this know that there will be no penalty, and
there may be an award of damages, of which they will get one-third.

Why would anyone pay off a frivolous claim? Because -- and personal
injury lawyers who abuse the system know this -- the cost of defending
claims might be greater than paying the settlement. Frivolous claims
would not be settled if lawyers who brought them would have to pay the
legal costs of the defendant.

At one point, that was the law in the United States, but in 1993, a
committee of judges weakened the frivolous claim rule, and gave judges
broad discretion about whether to penalize an individual who brought a
frivolous claim. Another modification of the rule also allowed
personal injury lawyers to play, "heads I win, tails you lose" -- they
had three weeks to withdraw a frivolous claim, and they would pay no
penalty.

Tough laws against frivolous claims were modified because some
believed that they discouraged legitimate claims. Nevertheless, 80
percent of the judges who enforced the rule thought that was not the
case. It has now been more than a decade since the frivolous claim
rule was weakened. That decade has clearly shown the adverse
consequences of "no pain, all gain," weak frivolous claim rules.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would restore strict sanctions against
lawyers who brought frivolous claims: it would stop "legal extortion."
Since many state procedure rules follow changes in federal law,
similar protections for state cases would follow.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act also addresses the second major cause
of lawsuit abuse: nationwide forum shopping to places referred to as
"Judicial Hellholes" by the American Tort Reform Association.
Unusually candid personal injury lawyers call judicial hellholes
"magic jurisdictions," where the scales of justice tilt against
defendants. Judicial hellholes act as magnets for frivolous claims.
More cases are filed in one Mississippi town than its entire
population; there are more asbestos claims filed in the rural
community of Madison County, Ill., than in large cities such as New
York.

Some judges will even allow a lawsuit against any company, as long as
it does "some" business in the state, creating the draw for
"litigation tourists," who never lived or worked in the jurisdiction,
and have nothing to do with the place other than to sue there.

"Litigation tourists" provide no benefit when they visit. They pay no
taxes, and only clog a local community's courts. The Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act would put an end to this rampant forum shopping. It
focuses on a vital need for interstate commerce. It makes clear that
people can bring lawsuits where appropriate, namely, where they live,
where they were hurt or exposed to a product, or where the defendant
has its principal place of business and no other place.

--

(Victor E. Schwartz is general counsel and Cary Silverman is
co-counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, an organization
dedicated to tort and liability reform through public education and
the enactment of legislation.)

On 13 Jul 2004 04:48:22 -0700, stevejdufour@yahoo.com (Steve Dufour)
wrote:
Outside View: Stop lawsuit abuseBy Victor E. Schwartz & Cary SilvermanA UPI Outside View commentaryWashington, DC, Jul. 13 (UPI) -- Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem inthis country. It denies access to medicine. It discourages doctorsfrom continuing in their profession. It causes good products to beremoved from the market. It unreasonably drives up costs of otherproducts. Lawsuit abuse can be a major problem for large businesses;it can be devastating for small businesses.

I recall a Rand study a few years ago concluding that only one case in
ten of medical malpractice lead to any sort of claim for compensation.

From an economic point of view, why bother to take cost-effective
actions to prevent harm if the costs are rarely borne?

On the other hand, the Rand study said that in LA county about twice
as many claims for compensation arose in auto accidents as were
warranted by the number of "real" injuries.

So I think the overall notion of lawsuit abuse is overly broad.

In some cases we seem to have too many suits, and in other cases too
few.

As to doctors, the cost of coping with malpractice is apparently a
very small item, less than two percent of all costs.

At least that was the figure Poppy Bush used when he ran against Bill
Clinton in 1992. He claimed it cost the nation 20 billion dollars a
year.

If those costs make doctors be more careful then it might avoid forty
billion a year in damage. IF a doctor never has to worry about being
sued, then economically, why should he give much thought to harm
prevention?

Is less than two percent as a cost really out of line?

There are two principal causes of lawsuit abuse. Both are addressed inimportant new legislation recently introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith,R-Texas, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004.The first major cause of lawsuit abuse that is especially troublesomefor small business is frivolous claims. Frivolous claims have no basisin either fact or law. But they are costly. A recent survey by thenation's largest small business group, the National Federation ofIndependent Business, indicates that liability costs rank second onlyto health insurance.

Senator Edwards has proposed that any lawyer caught filing three
frivoulous lawsuits be banned from filing suits for ten years.
One could imagine that those who bring frivolous claims would suffersome adverse consequences, but they do not. A lawyer can file a claimagainst a restaurant, even though his client never dined there.

In my state the price for doing that is to be required to pay for the
restaurant's lawyers fees. That is pretty expensive.


Alawyer can file a claim against a school where his "client" was notreally a victim, but actually caused chaos that led to his injury. Alawyer can file a claim under absurd theories, such as a claim againsta theatre for "emotional harm" because the management ran out oftickets. Lawyers who do this know that there will be no penalty, andthere may be an award of damages, of which they will get one-third.

I bet that there are penalties for frivoulous claims in most states.

There is nothing to stop a state from adopting such a rule, as my
state has done.

So you file a frivolous claim, you have to pay for your own lawyer and
for the lawyer on the other side. Good luck.
Why would anyone pay off a frivolous claim? Because -- and personalinjury lawyers who abuse the system know this -- the cost of defendingclaims might be greater than paying the settlement. Frivolous claimswould not be settled if lawyers who brought them would have to pay thelegal costs of the defendant.

I bet that's the case in a lot more states than my own.At one point, that was the law in the United States, but in 1993, acommittee of judges weakened the frivolous claim rule, and gave judgesbroad discretion about whether to penalize an individual who brought afrivolous claim.

A committee of judges can't give judges broad discretion to ignore the
law of my state, or of any other state, in this regard.


Another modification of the rule also allowedpersonal injury lawyers to play, "heads I win, tails you lose" -- theyhad three weeks to withdraw a frivolous claim, and they would pay nopenalty.

How exactly can a panel of judges write laws like this?

They can't.
Tough laws against frivolous claims were modified because somebelieved that they discouraged legitimate claims. Nevertheless, 80percent of the judges who enforced the rule thought that was not thecase. It has now been more than a decade since the frivolous claimrule was weakened. That decade has clearly shown the adverseconsequences of "no pain, all gain," weak frivolous claim rules.

Where is the proof?

Rand says only ten percent of medical malpractice generates any claim
at all. Anyone have any evidence that frivolous claims are higher now
than in the past?
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would restore strict sanctions againstlawyers who brought frivolous claims: it would stop "legal extortion."Since many state procedure rules follow changes in federal law,similar protections for state cases would follow.

I'm all for punishing frivoulous lawsuits.

While permitting valid ones from going forward.
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act also addresses the second major causeof lawsuit abuse: nationwide forum shopping to places referred to as"Judicial Hellholes" by the American Tort Reform Association.


In other words, they want to force states to adopt the rules
contributors to the Republican party favor.

Shouldn't each state have a right to its own rules?
Unusually candid personal injury lawyers call judicial hellholes"magic jurisdictions," where the scales of justice tilt againstdefendants. Judicial hellholes act as magnets for frivolous claims.More cases are filed in one Mississippi town than its entirepopulation; there are more asbestos claims filed in the ruralcommunity of Madison County, Ill., than in large cities such as NewYork.Some judges will even allow a lawsuit against any company, as long asit does "some" business in the state, creating the draw for"litigation tourists," who never lived or worked in the jurisdiction,and have nothing to do with the place other than to sue there."Litigation tourists" provide no benefit when they visit. They pay notaxes, and only clog a local community's courts. The Lawsuit AbuseReduction Act would put an end to this rampant forum shopping. Itfocuses on a vital need for interstate commerce. It makes clear thatpeople can bring lawsuits where appropriate, namely, where they live,where they were hurt or exposed to a product, or where the defendanthas its principal place of business and no other place.

So a firm stealing from millions could shop for a principal place of
business where juries are favorable to them, and effectively be
exempt, provided the amount stolen from each person precluded a
separate lawsuit.

In effect what this does is moves the power to forum shop from
plaintiffs to defendants.

I think there is a valid point here, though.

Maybe there is an in between solution which would prevent either side
from forum shopping.

On 13 Jul 2004 04:48:22 -0700, stevejdufour@yahoo.com (Steve Dufour)
wrote:
Outside View: Stop lawsuit abuseBy Victor E. Schwartz & Cary SilvermanA UPI Outside View commentaryWashington, DC, Jul. 13 (UPI) -- Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem inthis country. It denies access to medicine. It discourages doctorsfrom continuing in their profession. It causes good products to beremoved from the market. It unreasonably drives up costs of otherproducts. Lawsuit abuse can be a major problem for large businesses;it can be devastating for small businesses.There are two principal causes of lawsuit abuse. Both are addressed inimportant new legislation recently introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith,R-Texas, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004.The first major cause of lawsuit abuse that is especially troublesomefor small business is frivolous claims. Frivolous claims have no basisin either fact or law.

Except of course the law currently provides that lawyers and people
who bring frivolous suits get them thrown out fined and have to pay
the fees and costs for the other side. (But they don't want to talk
about that.)
But they are costly. A recent survey by thenation's largest small business group, the National Federation ofIndependent Business, indicates that liability costs rank second onlyto health insurance.

Liability? Catch the shift from frivolous to total liability? Gee you
know what if you follow the rules do good work and don't cheat people
you have no liability. Funny how that works. BTW most civil litigation
is businesses suing businesses. Consumers and victims have a very hard
time getting into court. Especially for claims under $50,000 which is
probably 90% of wrongs and accident claims.
One could imagine

most anything evidently.
that those who bring frivolous claims would suffersome adverse consequences, but they do not. A lawyer can file a claimagainst a restaurant, even though his client never dined there. Alawyer can file a claim against a school where his "client" was notreally a victim, but actually caused chaos that led to his injury.

A rule 11 says he could get sanctioned fined and have to pay the
others sides fee - and he'd get disbarred.
Alawyer can file a claim under absurd theories, such as a claim againsta theatre for "emotional harm" because the management ran out oftickets. Lawyers who do this know that there will be no penalty, andthere may be an award of damages, of which they will get one-third.

More lies. Find a case like this.

Here's the rule that punishes such behavior if it ever existed:
http://tinyurl.com/55yz3

Every pleading a lawyer files bears his signature and he swears by
that :
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or
later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an
attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the
person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost
of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the
establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary
support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence
or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of
information or belief.

And if his opponent shows otherwise or the judge finds otherwise he
can be financially sanctioned. A habit of bringing worthless suits
could readily get a person disbarred.

Why would anyone pay off a frivolous claim? Because -- and personalinjury lawyers who abuse the system know this -- the cost of defendingclaims might be greater than paying the settlement. Frivolous claimswould not be settled if lawyers who brought them would have to pay thelegal costs of the defendant.At one point, that was the law in the United States, but in 1993, acommittee of judges weakened the frivolous claim rule, and gave judgesbroad discretion about whether to penalize an individual who brought afrivolous claim. Another modification of the rule also allowedpersonal injury lawyers to play, "heads I win, tails you lose" -- theyhad three weeks to withdraw a frivolous claim, and they would pay nopenalty.

Translation frivolous cases get thrown out.Tough laws against frivolous claims were modified because somebelieved that they discouraged legitimate claims. Nevertheless, 80percent of the judges who enforced the rule thought that was not thecase. It has now been more than a decade since the frivolous claimrule was weakened. That decade has clearly shown the adverseconsequences of "no pain, all gain," weak frivolous claim rules.

Funny 10 years ago you guys were saying exactly the same things and
pretending the rule against frivolous claims didn't exist.The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would restore strict sanctions againstlawyers who brought frivolous claims: it would stop "legal extortion."Since many state procedure rules follow changes in federal law,similar protections for state cases would follow.The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act also addresses the second major causeof lawsuit abuse: nationwide forum shopping to places referred to as"Judicial Hellholes" by the American Tort Reform Association.Unusually candid personal injury lawyers call judicial hellholes"magic jurisdictions," where the scales of justice tilt againstdefendants. Judicial hellholes act as magnets for frivolous claims.More cases are filed in one Mississippi town than its entirepopulation; there are more asbestos claims filed in the ruralcommunity of Madison County, Ill., than in large cities such as NewYork.

The law caps noneconomic damages at $250,000. I just read a case
locally where a woman had both breasts removed becuase she supposedly
had cancer. Post surgery examination revealed a false diagnosis - she
was perfectly healthy. This law would see her economic damages
covered (the cost of the unnecessary surgery, and lost wages for the
recovery time) but little else. Her noneconomic damages would be
capped at $250,000. Does this seem adequate compensation?

Some judges will even allow a lawsuit against any company, as long asit does "some" business in the state, creating the draw for"litigation tourists," who never lived or worked in the jurisdiction,and have nothing to do with the place other than to sue there.

So people passing through a state injured by a company doing business
in the state shouldn't be allowed to sue for their damages? Sheesh."Litigation tourists" provide no benefit when they visit. They pay notaxes, and only clog a local community's courts.

So they should not be entitled to justice?
The Lawsuit AbuseReduction Act would put an end to this rampant forum shopping. Itfocuses on a vital need for interstate commerce. It makes clear thatpeople can bring lawsuits where appropriate, namely, where they live,where they were hurt or exposed to a product, or where the defendanthas its principal place of business and no other place.

Strange - that's what the law says now.

This federal law seeks to rewrite all the state laws it disagrees with
for the benefit of the big companies who have bought their way into
the US congress.

What happened to our federal system? What happened to state's right?
Why are the feds mandating how states set up their state court
systems? Why is it federalizing most of this litigation - making a
federal case of it? Because it benefits big business. Plain and
simple.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.

"Steve Dufour" <stevejdufour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:744cc401.0407130348.6db8b95b@posting.google.c om... Outside View: Stop lawsuit abuse By Victor E. Schwartz & Cary Silverman A UPI Outside View commentary

Complete and utter nonsense, unsupporterd by fact.

Washington, DC, Jul. 13 (UPI) -- Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem in this country. It denies access to medicine. It discourages doctors from continuing in their profession. It causes good products to be removed from the market. It unreasonably drives up costs of other products. Lawsuit abuse can be a major problem for large businesses; it can be devastating for small businesses. There are two principal causes of lawsuit abuse. Both are addressed in important new legislation recently introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004.

What a surprise!
The first major cause of lawsuit abuse that is especially troublesome for small business is frivolous claims. Frivolous claims have no basis in either fact or law. But they are costly. A recent survey by the nation's largest small business group, the National Federation of Independent Business, indicates that liability costs rank second only to health insurance.

The only problem is: there aren't that many frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous
litigation is already precluded by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which provides for
expensive sanctions against both the party bringing frivolous litigation AND
the attorney who brought it.
One could imagine that those who bring frivolous claims would suffer some adverse consequences, but they do not. A lawyer can file a claim against a restaurant, even though his client never dined there.

This is probably a reference to restaurants which violate the ADA. Yes,
that's right -- if the lawyer's client is disabled and the restaurant is not
accessible, that violates the law (and, of course, it is impossible for the
disabled plaintiff to dine at the restaurant -- that's exactly why the law
has been broken).
A lawyer can file a claim against a school where his "client" was not really a victim, but actually caused chaos that led to his injury.

Nonsense.
A lawyer can file a claim under absurd theories, such as a claim against a theatre for "emotional harm" because the management ran out of tickets.

More nonsense.
Lawyers who do this know that there will be no penalty, and there may be an award of damages, of which they will get one-third.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 provides a serious penalty -- sanctions in, essentially,
any amount. All states have similar state statutes. The authors of the
article are, simply, lying.
Why would anyone pay off a frivolous claim? Because -- and personal injury lawyers who abuse the system know this -- the cost of defending claims might be greater than paying the settlement. Frivolous claims would not be settled if lawyers who brought them would have to pay the legal costs of the defendant.

They do.
At one point, that was the law in the United States, but in 1993, a committee of judges weakened the frivolous claim rule, and gave judges broad discretion about whether to penalize an individual who brought a frivolous claim. Another modification of the rule also allowed personal injury lawyers to play, "heads I win, tails you lose" -- they had three weeks to withdraw a frivolous claim, and they would pay no penalty.

This is a reference to Rule 11, not state laws. And it's true -- if the
lawsuit (or frivolous pleading) is withdrawn, there is no penalty. What's
wrong with that?
Tough laws against frivolous claims were modified because some believed that they discouraged legitimate claims. Nevertheless, 80 percent of the judges who enforced the rule thought that was not the case. It has now been more than a decade since the frivolous claim rule was weakened.

It's not weakened. This is nonsense.
That decade has clearly shown the adverse consequences of "no pain, all gain," weak frivolous claim rules. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act would restore strict sanctions against lawyers who brought frivolous claims: it would stop "legal extortion." Since many state procedure rules follow changes in federal law, similar protections for state cases would follow.

The proposed law is a "gimme" to corporations that will do nothing other
than to limit recovery against businesses that cause harm.
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act also addresses the second major cause of lawsuit abuse: nationwide forum shopping to places referred to as "Judicial Hellholes" by the American Tort Reform Association.

Three guesses what the American Tort Reform Association is.

<remainder of lying propagand snipped>
-- (Victor E. Schwartz is general counsel and Cary Silverman is co-counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, an organization dedicated to tort and liability reform through public education and the enactment of legislation.)

Well, this says it all, doesn't it? And, no, I'm not a personal injury
lawyer -- I'm an intellectual property litigator, so I have no personal
interest in so-called "tort reform" one way or another.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:40:43 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2004 04:48:22 -0700, stevejdufour@yahoo.com (Steve Dufour)wrote:Outside View: Stop lawsuit abuseBy Victor E. Schwartz & Cary SilvermanA UPI Outside View commentaryWashington, DC, Jul. 13 (UPI) -- Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem inthis country. It denies access to medicine. It discourages doctorsfrom continuing in their profession. It causes good products to beremoved from the market. It unreasonably drives up costs of otherproducts. Lawsuit abuse can be a major problem for large businesses;it can be devastating for small businesses.I recall a Rand study a few years ago concluding that only one case inten of medical malpractice lead to any sort of claim for compensation.From an economic point of view, why bother to take cost-effectiveactions to prevent harm if the costs are rarely borne?On the other hand, the Rand study said that in LA county about twiceas many claims for compensation arose in auto accidents as werewarranted by the number of "real" injuries.So I think the overall notion of lawsuit abuse is overly broad.In some cases we seem to have too many suits, and in other cases toofew.As to doctors, the cost of coping with malpractice is apparently avery small item, less than two percent of all costs.


Interestingly much litigation is over health care costs that would not
be needed if we had universal health care coverage. Most fender
benders for example result in small amounts of property damage but an
ER visit can add $10,000s to the bill. It makes litigation necessary.

Places with universal health care have less litigation.

Do you really want to clear up our courts?

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:40:43 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:
I bet that there are penalties for frivoulous claims in most states.There is nothing to stop a state from adopting such a rule, as mystate has done.So you file a frivolous claim, you have to pay for your own lawyer andfor the lawyer on the other side. Good luck.

I know of no state that does not have a federal Rule 11 analog.

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:01:19 GMT, retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:40:43 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:I bet that there are penalties for frivoulous claims in most states.There is nothing to stop a state from adopting such a rule, as mystate has done.So you file a frivolous claim, you have to pay for your own lawyer andfor the lawyer on the other side. Good luck.I know of no state that does not have a federal Rule 11 analog.________
In the state in which I reside there is no such thing as a frivolous
claim.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:25:18 GMT, C. Montgomery Burns
<cmontgomeryburns@springfield.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:01:19 GMT, retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:40:43 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:I bet that there are penalties for frivoulous claims in most states.There is nothing to stop a state from adopting such a rule, as mystate has done.So you file a frivolous claim, you have to pay for your own lawyer andfor the lawyer on the other side. Good luck.I know of no state that does not have a federal Rule 11 analog.________In the state in which I reside there is no such thing as a frivolousclaim.

Meaning what? That they aren't allowed and polluted or everything
goes?

BTW California has a Rule 11. ;->

________
Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world
like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:17:56 GMT, retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:25:18 GMT, C. Montgomery Burns<cmontgomeryburns@springfield.com> wrote:On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:01:19 GMT, retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:40:43 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:>I bet that there are penalties for frivoulous claims in most states.>>There is nothing to stop a state from adopting such a rule, as my>state has done.>>So you file a frivolous claim, you have to pay for your own lawyer and>for the lawyer on the other side. Good luck.I know of no state that does not have a federal Rule 11 analog.________In the state in which I reside there is no such thing as a frivolousclaim.Meaning what? That they aren't allowed and polluted or everythinggoes?BTW California has a Rule 11. ;->
Yes but in California there is no such thing as a frivolous claim.
________Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the worldlike the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world.

"Steve Dufour" <stevejdufour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:744cc401.0407130348.6db8b95b@posting.google.c om...> Outside View: Stop
lawsuit abuse By Victor E. Schwartz & Cary Silverman A UPI Outside View commentary Washington, DC, Jul. 13 (UPI) -- Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem in this country.

So say the corporations and their right-wing toadies in the Republican
Party.



It denies access to medicine.


Greedy corporations and their toadies deny access to medicine. They will
try their damnedest to prosecute you or sic the US Attorney on you if you
fill your Rx's through Canadian or Mexican channels. Matter again of
corporate greed and the populace-fleecing Republican party.

It discourages doctors from continuing in their profession.


Bull****. Provide authoritative raw data. You won't, of course.


It causes good products to be removed from the market.


Like what, for instance? Otherwise, be considered disingenuous, i. e., a
couple of partisan liars.


It unreasonably drives up costs of other products.


Cite?


Lawsuit abuse can be a major problem for large businesses; it can be devastating for small businesses.

How about a few examples to curdle our blood? There are two principal causes of lawsuit abuse. Both are addressed in important new legislation recently introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004.

Lamar Smith is a corporate quean.
? > The first major cause of lawsuit abuse that is especially troublesome for small business is frivolous claims. Frivolous claims have no basis in either fact or law. But they are costly. A recent survey by the nation's largest small business group, the National Federation of Independent Business, indicates that liability costs rank second only to health insurance. One could imagine that those who bring frivolous claims would suffer some adverse consequences, but they do not.
?
? Oh, but they do.
? A lawyer can file a claim against a restaurant, even though his client never dined there.
How so? Give us such a case or be exposed as not-so-facile liars. A lawyer can file a claim against a school where his "client" was not really a victim, but actually caused chaos that led to his injury.
?
?
? How about elaborating on this shocking litigation and where it has
occurred. You won't, of course.
?
?
? A lawyer can file a claim under absurd theories, such as a claim against a theatre for "emotional harm" because the management ran out of tickets.
?
?
? Again, provide examples of where this despicable practice has occurred.
You won't, of course, because you have concocted it. And if it really
happened, the judges and the legal profession will run the lawyer out of
town on a rail.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? Lawyers who do this know that there will be no penalty, and there may be an award of damages, of which they will get one-third.
?
? Lawyers who do this, if indeed any of them do, must be unaware of the
frivolity-punishing disciplinary sanctions contained in the rules of civil
procedure of every state in the union.
? [.]