Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Rudd who wrote (11485)	11/28/2000 3:34:15 PM
From: Tomato	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78599

OT All right--I've had enough of attorney bashing here! To all you trial attorney haters...besides the topic being OT to begin with, I find it offensive to hear your constant bitching and moaning. Were it not for trial attorneys, people who have been injured by negligence and/or defective products would be SOL, or be forced to accept a pittance after so-called tort reform drastically reduced their ability to be made as close to whole as possible. If you think Bridgestone/Firestone is bad, imagine how many other bean counters would have their way in creating dangerous products if they didn't have to worry about punitive damage awards lurking? The country is a much safer place to live today due to the efforts of trial lawyers and our current tort system. Since many of the people who post here are conservative in their economic and political views, I find it ironic that a system that rewards greed, i.e. the contingent fee system, should be criticized. Or perhaps it's only ok to cheer corporate greed but not any perceived greed by individuals who have had their lives ruined by the corporate greed. Greed, say, of a Ford who decided to design their Pinto gas tanks to save a couple bucks per car, calculating that any possible personal injury lawsuit verdicts by heirs of people who were turned into toast by any explosion in a rear-end collision would be offset by the savings to the bottom line? And critics also must assume that 12 (or less) people on a jury are somehow hypnotized and turned into idiots by Svengali-like plaintiff's lawyers. I suggest that any tort critic who, say, had experienced the tragedy of a family member killed in a roll-over in an Explorer with Firestone tires will have had their minds changed and would be thankful for our current tort system and for p.i. lawyers.