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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (194556)	7/19/2004 6:19:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573682

The courts and the just system are the methods. Joe argued that the jury system might not deal with malpractice cases well but he didn't say the jury system was going after the MDs. The plaintiffs and their lawyers are going after the MDs. They use the courts and the juries to do so. Yes, and that's why he criticized the jury system and questioned whether it should be allowed to continue. Yes that was why he criticized and questions the jury system. It is also why it isn't an argument of MD's vs. the little guy or the "lower classes". Juries aren't the little guy in some dispute. They help settle the dispute. The conflict talked about in the whole conversation from the begining has been trial lawyers against doctors. Sure poor people get involved as jurors or as plaintiffs or as people who pay higher medical costs or insurance premiums because of the lawsuits. Its not "the lower classes" vs. anyone because they are on both sides. In any case more of them are hurt by the actions of the plaintiffs and trial lawyers then benefit from the lawsuits. So are you suggesting that if people suspect malpractice but aren't sure, they shouldn't be allowed to sue? How does "Death or injury should not automatically equal good grounds for a lawsuit." equal not being allowed to sue without previously proving their case? I also don't think that someone with some distant connection to the case and probably 1% of the blame should be found liable for 100% of the payout just because they have deep pockets. I think that anyone sued should be the person or group or organization that is primarily at fault or at least contributed signifigantly to the problem. Please elaborate........whose the 1%? It would depend on the case. But in many cases someone, or some company or organization that is found to have any minute amount of responsibility can be sued for the whole cost if the person, company or organization that is primarily response doesn't have the money to pay. There has been some move away from this idea; for example, I linked to a story about how PA you have to be at least 60% responsible to be forced to pay all the costs; but I think we need to continue and extend this type of reform. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (194556)	8/3/2004 7:48:29 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573682

Some more links apta.org bcnys.org nfib.com "When a West Virginia coal miner drilled through a thin wall and accidentally injured another worker, J.H. Fletcher, the firm that manufactured that drill, laced a huge lawsuit. The company, which didn't operate the drill, says it did install the required headlight to warn workers of its approach. To avoid a costly legal battle, the company settled the case for $25,000, about $50,000 less than what it would have cost to try the claim in court. Businesses of all sizes all across America face the threat of lawsuit everyday." findarticles.com bcnys.org mnchamber.com "Environmental law surge The Superfund program, as well as a flood of other environmental statutes, has fueled a boom in the field of environmental law, a specialty almost unheard-of a decade and a half ago. The latest legal directory put out by West Publishing listed almost 25,000 U.S. lawyers with practices that included environmental law. That represents almost 4 percent of all the lawyers in the nation. The high legal fees associated with Superfund are generally acknowledged to be the result of the law's so-called "polluter pays" philosophy -- the backbone of the entire cleanup program. Under the current funding scheme, companies are subject to a series of rigid legal doctrines that many caught in the Superfund net consider grossly unfair, sending most companies scrambling to the courthouse in an attempt to escape -- or at least reduce -- their liability under the law. Those doctrines are known as strict, retroactive and joint and several liability. Strict liability means that a private party can be held responsible for cleaning up a site even if there was no negligence at the time the waste disposal occurred and regardless of whether the disposal was legal, or even an accepted practice, at the time. Retroactive liability requires that a private party assume cleanup responsibilities even if the disposal took place before the 1980 law was enacted. And under joint and several liability, a company can be forced to pay for cleanup activities at an entire Superfund site, even if it contributed only a small share of the contamination at the site. " chron.com townhall.com townhall.com