Impeach George W. Bush Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: MSI who wrote (23800)	12/13/2003 5:37:27 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) of 93284

Still another reason for medical commonsense over there is that attornies ("Queen's Counsels" or "Barristers") are prohibited from charging contingency fees. You either get represented gratis by gov't, or pay a flat hourly, instead of the American treasure-hunt system. I found that to be an interesting part of their system. "Huge" awards seem to be on the order of £10,000. And I've seen a case where the defendent was found to be negligent in maintaining equipment but it also found that there was no malicious intent and judged to be an accident [death resulted due to malfunctioning equipment]. That appears to be a non-existent verdict in our system. I'll grant that the system has some, at a minimum, superficial appeal. But I don't know enough to be able to say one system is preferable over the other. Before I would entertain changes to our system, I would like to know things like...what percentage of doctors are sued; what's the average settlement [or award]; something objective as to what constitutes "frivolous" and what percentage of suits are frivolous... About the only thing remotely statistical that I've seen is that Ob/Gyns are the most likely doctors to be sued. Which doesn't mean a lot. jttmab

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next