Is this the end of the Forum?

[allenwayne]

Some frivilous law suits end in disaster for the plantiff.Look at the woman that claimed there was a mouse in her soup at a well known resturant.It was determined that the mouse died from a head injury and not drowning in the soup.She recieved a year in jail for her attempt to extort money in this manner.So all is not lost,at least forensic science is doing more than what CSI shows.Bonafide suits should be allowed to continue but when someone blatenly is trying to decieve and extort money for no reason other than the system allows them too.If found they should be put under the jail.

 

[templdl]

If its one thing that I have learned is that, if there's no money in it for them there's no way a lawyer will sue.
So there's two ways a lawyer gets money, either you pay them up front out of your pocket or they get paid a percentage of the settlement.
When they are paid up from they have no risk because it is you who have paid for their services. Does the lawyer care if your lawsuit is winnable? He/she is only doing what they have been paid to do, win or loose.
However, isn?t a good portion of lawsuits brought today where the lawyer is solely compensated contingent upon winning? This puts the shoe on the other foot. You bring the opportunity to the lawyer, the lawyer considers its merits and the money that can possibly one. What do they normally get 30-35% of the settlement? If they don't win they don't get paid.
Therefore, isn?t it fair assume that, if the defendant doesn't have "deep pockets" or a "big" insurance policy like one of those multimillion dollar umbrella policy that some people like to consider as protection, then the "pot of gold" may not be big enough making a lawsuit less inviting.
In conclusion, wouldn?t it be fair to say that most lawyers compensation contingent upon a percentage of the settlement since most people aren?t in a position to pay for a lawyer up front? Wouldn?t it also be fair to say that large insurance policy may be inviting for lawsuits? Could there be a possibility of being over insured which may be an invitation for lawsuits?
We all need to be insured because things can happen that we are responsible for. But how much is to much and what can be legally taken away from us and what can we afford to loose. One has to evaluate the risks as opposed to the possibility of providing an opportunity for those looking for that pot of gold.

 

[hbiss]

Forget about web forums for the moment. What about hardware stores and Home Depot? They have no immunity when their employees give advice. I'm amazed that they haven't faced lawsuits yet and they certainly have deep pockets. That's litigation I think we all would applaud.

-Hal

 

[templdl]

Hal,
It could be the atmosphere of those stores that makes the customer feel that the store is doing them a favor in giving them "free" advice. The customer goes into the store with the intention of buying something because they want to do it themselves. The employee assists the customer by answering questions and recommending the right products. This is all being done face to face.
Now, take the Internet, it is a faceless, an in so much as a digital relationship with no face to face contact. Submitting a lawsuit against this faceless person? Who cares?
So goes the Email and voice mail that go unreturned. Who are you going to complain to? Send another Email or leave another voice message? And trying getting through to a decision-maker or supervisor?
So there may be something positive about having a face to face relationship.
I'm going through a situation with Polaroid where nobody is taking ownership for a obviously inferior product. The want be to buy a replacement with little assurance that the replacement will be any better than the original item. The product failure is the rule rather than the exception.