The $15,000,000 oil change

[Sue U]

Of course...the Jeep owner now has to pay a pile of money to a lawyer.

Best argument EVER for tort reform.

No, the Jeep owner's insurer is paying its own lawyers for defense. That's their job. And that's exactly what insurance defense is for.

And in any event, now it's the dealership's insurer that's paying the lawyers.

Also, I don't think you actually know what "tort reform" means.

Loser pays all legal fees.

No, you don't actually know what "tort reform" means.

"Tort reform" means that certain select professional elites and politically connected corporations get statutory immunity for their negligence.
"Tort reform" means a statutory cap on how much you may recover for injuries, regardless of how severe and horrific and life-altering those injuries are.
"Tort reform" means insurance companies can get away with bad faith and unfair practices in settling claims.
"Tort reform" means prohibiting injured people from pursuing claims in open court before a jury, and instead shuttling them off to secret binding arbitration performed by companies paid by and beholden to the insurance industry.
"Tort reform" means liability insurers get a break on the costs of negligence they are paid to cover by shifting responsibility for medical expenses from the at-fault party to the injured person's own health plan, driving up medical costs for everyone.
"Tort reform" means that you have to meet some arbitrary "standard" of injury before you're even permitted to make a claim.
"Tort reform" means that cases that do go to court are more expensive to pursue because of burdensome requirements for "expert opinion" testimony.
And funny enough, no "tort reform" legislation passed in the 80s and 90s heyday of "tort reform" has included "loser pays pays all legal fees." Why do you think that is? And why do you even think it's a good idea?

[Jarlaxle]

Mostly? To stop stupid shit like this. Make people think twice before trying for a lawsuit lottery.

[Sue U]

What exactly is the "stupid shit like this" in this case that you want to stop? Who in this case is "trying for a lawsuit lottery"? What part of this case is a "lawsuit lottery" and why? How does "loser pays all legal fees" benefit anyone in this case? How does it benefit the judicial system other than by giving a punitive advantage to the side with the most and most expensive lawyers? Why does it make any difference at all to you?

[Jarlaxle]

What exactly is the "stupid shit like this" in this case that you want to stop? Who in this case is "trying for a lawsuit lottery"? What part of this case is a "lawsuit lottery" and why? How does "loser pays all legal fees" benefit anyone in this case? How does it benefit the judicial system other than by giving a punitive advantage to the side with the most and most expensive lawyers? Why does it make any difference at all to you?

You're not this thick. It's not possible.

[Sue U]

You're not this thick. It's not possible.

And yet you're the one who can't answer simple questions about your own claims in your own post. You just swallow the propaganda of the insurance industry, asbestos manufacturers, tobacco companies and the US Chamber of Commerce and spew out their slogans to become their useful idiot. For someone who claims to be such an independent thinker, you sure talk like the boot-licking toady of your corporate masters.

[Jarlaxle]

You're not this thick. It's not possible.

And yet you're the one who can't answer simple questions about your own claims in your own post. You just swallow the propaganda of the insurance industry, asbestos manufacturers, tobacco companies and the US Chamber of Commerce and spew out their slogans to become their useful idiot. For someone who claims to be such an independent thinker, you sure talk like the boot-licking toady of your corporate masters.

There's no point in responding, you will just post another barely-relevant screed, garnished, as now, with personal attacks.

Loser pays is the way to go.

[Big RR]

Lower pays is the way to go.

sure, especially if you have money; to deny recourse to people who cannot afford to bear the fees in the event of a loss is not the way to encourage people to use our courts rather than, as the Peoples Court used to say, taking "the law into your own hands". You either want to encourage eople to seek recourse through legal means or not.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Lower pays is the way to go.

. . . or even looser pays. I have to admire the way the first personal attack ("you're not this thick") becomes not-a-personal-attack so that Sue can be blamed for making an unprovoked personal attack. Very Trumpian.

[Sue U]

I have to admire the way the first personal attack ("you're not this thick") becomes not-a-personal-attack so that Sue can be blamed for making an unprovoked personal attack. Very Trumpian.

I don't think mine was a "personal attack" so much as a suggestion that Jarlaxle has been hoodwinked by the "tort reform" propaganda campaign, but I will admit to being unkind in my characterization (YMMV). I was annoyed by his evasiveness, and his baseless and frankly ignorant declarations concerning the civil justice system and how my profession should operate. Of course, as they say, every asshole has an opinion, but if you're going to expose it for public inspection, you should at least be ready to answer some questions about it.

[Jarlaxle]

Lower pays is the way to go.

. . . or even looser pays. I have to admire the way the first personal attack ("you're not this thick") becomes not-a-personal-attack so that Sue can be blamed for making an unprovoked personal attack. Very Trumpian.

Hardly a personal attack...I was observing that Sue is NOT that thick. She is much smarter than that, though seemed to be playing dumb for some reason.

[Jarlaxle]

You're not this thick. It's not possible.

And yet you're the one who can't answer simple questions about your own claims in your own post. You just swallow the propaganda of the insurance industry, asbestos manufacturers, tobacco companies and the US Chamber of Commerce and spew out their slogans to become their useful idiot. For someone who claims to be such an independent thinker, you sure talk like the boot-licking toady of your corporate masters.

And more personal attacks. Look, I get it: you're a lawyer. You WANT stupid suits. You WANT over the top stupid cases. You WANT the lawsuit lottery. That keeps your profession employed.

[Sue U]

You're not this thick. It's not possible.

And yet you're the one who can't answer simple questions about your own claims in your own post. You just swallow the propaganda of the insurance industry, asbestos manufacturers, tobacco companies and the US Chamber of Commerce and spew out their slogans to become their useful idiot. For someone who claims to be such an independent thinker, you sure talk like the boot-licking toady of your corporate masters.

And more personal attacks. Look, I get it: you're a lawyer. You WANT stupid suits. You WANT over the top stupid cases. You WANT the lawsuit lottery. That keeps your profession employed.

You're responding to something you already responded to, and STILL running away from the issue. Try telling me what supports YOUR opinion rather than making up shit about what I supposedly want. Why is this lawsuit "stupid"? What makes it "over the top"? What about any of this is a "lottery"? How does a "loser pays all legal expenses" rule factor into this at all?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Loser pays costs is fairly common in UK courts but it's really up to the judge and is by by no means always. It depends to some extent on the conduct of the litigants, whether the judge deems the lawsuit frivolous, whether a useful legal point is decided or at issue, and so on. It serves to discourage, especially, frivolous lawsuits. Often the opposing litigants can decide how the costs will go prior to the trial, regardless of the outcome. The judge, if s/he awards costs to the winner - i.e., loser pays winner's legal costs - can decide if part of that cost is unreasonable and disallow that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Lower pays is the way to go.

. . . or even looser pays. I have to admire the way the first personal attack ("you're not this thick") becomes not-a-personal-attack so that Sue can be blamed for making an unprovoked personal attack. Very Trumpian.

Hardly a personal attack...I was observing that Sue is NOT that thick. She is much smarter than that, though seemed to be playing dumb for some reason.

Yeah, right. If I write that you're not that much of an asshole . . . all I'm doing is pointing out that you ain't one . . . just seem to be playing one. So, yes - it is a personal attack disguised as a compliment. But . . . whatever.

[Sue U]

Loser pays costs is fairly common in UK courts but it's really up to the judge and is by by no means always. It depends to some extent on the conduct of the litigants, whether the judge deems the lawsuit frivolous, whether a useful legal point is decided or at issue, and so on. It serves to discourage, especially, frivolous lawsuits. Often the opposing litigants can decide how the costs will go prior to the trial, regardless of the outcome. The judge, if s/he awards costs to the winner - i.e., loser pays winner's legal costs - can decide if part of that cost is unreasonable and disallow that.

I understand all that. We actually do have civil procedure rules effecting similar purposes in both federal and state courts here: the frivolous litigation rule allows for punitive sanctions and usually an award for fees and costs; the offer-of-judgment rule requires an award of fees and costs (as well as enhanced pre-judgment interest here in NJ).

But the case in the OP is highly unlikely to be affected by a loser-pays rule, and there is nothing frivolous about the litigation.

[Jarlaxle]

You're responding to something you already responded to, and STILL running away from the issue. Try telling me what supports YOUR opinion rather than making up shit about what I supposedly want. Why is this lawsuit "stupid"?

Mostly, because the only one blameless in this shitshow is the guy getting sued!

What makes it "over the top"?

Maybe because someone who did nothing wrong is facing complete ruin.

What about any of this is a "lottery"?

I will not dignify that with an answer.

How does a "loser pays all legal expenses" rule factor into this at all?

I can't believe I need to explain something this obvious, but: it makes people think twice before filing ridiculous lawsuits. Off the top of my head, a guy crashed his Ducati (due to his own screw-up) at Laguna Seca, and (despite signing a waiver...because, well, riding a motorcycle at a track day is inherently dangerous) sued not only the track day organizer, but the track operator, the county (who owns the land), and...Mazda, because at the time, they had naming rights for the facility. He was another one trying for a lawsuit lottery-coincidentally, he was also asking for $15 million.

[Gob]

Come on Jarl, you're knocking the USA's major hobby here, one which keeps half this board in gainful, (but not productive,) work.

[Sue U]

You're responding to something you already responded to, and STILL running away from the issue. Try telling me what supports YOUR opinion rather than making up shit about what I supposedly want. Why is this lawsuit "stupid"?

Mostly, because the only one blameless in this shitshow is the guy getting sued!

So you think the guy who got killed is to be blamed for his own death? Should his estate and his widow/children have no right to fair compensation for the value of his life and injuries?

What makes it "over the top"?

Maybe because someone who did nothing wrong is facing complete ruin.

How is the automobile owner facing "complete ruin"? He has insurance. His insurance company is seeking indemnification from the auto dealership (and its insurer) as the at-fault party, so that the dealership will be on the hook for damages caused by its own negligence. The lawyers in this case are actually trying to place responsibility where it belongs as a matter of common sense. What is wrong with that?

The problem here is that In Michigan the owner of an automobile is deemed to be responsible for any injury resulting from the use of that automobile (unless it was stolen). This is not the choice of the parties or the lawyers in this suit, it is the choice of the geniuses in the Michigan legislature. They wrote the Owners Liability Law that forces this result.

What about any of this is a "lottery"?

I will not dignify that with an answer.

Meaning you have no answer.

How does a "loser pays all legal expenses" rule factor into this at all?

I can't believe I need to explain something this obvious, but: it makes people think twice before filing ridiculous lawsuits. Off the top of my head, a guy crashed his Ducati (due to his own screw-up) at Laguna Seca, and (despite signing a waiver...because, well, riding a motorcycle at a track day is inherently dangerous) sued not only the track day organizer, but the track operator, the county (who owns the land), and...Mazda, because at the time, they had naming rights for the facility. He was another one trying for a lawsuit lottery-coincidentally, he was also asking for $15 million.

First, we're not talking about some other case in a different state with different laws and different liability issues; we're talking about the case you posted in the OP. Second, you still haven't explained why this lawsuit is "ridiculous," especially since this is exactly what the Michigan auto statute requires. What part of this lawsuit is ridiculous? The widow seeking compensation for her dead husband and family? Or the auto owner seeking indemnification from the dealership? Should either have "thought twice" and not pursued any claim here?

And here's the kicker, just for you: The Michigan auto statute as it stands today, which is driving this very litigation, is itself the product of "tort reform" legislation passed in 1995. So clearly "tort reform" is the galaxy-brain solution to such ridiculous lawsuits.

[Big RR]

This is not the choice of the parties or the lawyers in this suit, it is the choice of the geniuses in the Michigan legislature. They wrote the Owners Liability Law that forces this result.

And Jarl, if you really don't like it, you can always lobby the legislature to change the law to make it more equitable in your view.

Sue is right, a "loser pays" system would not have any effect here; and, FWIW, since many lawyers are only paid if there is a recovery, there is a real incentive not to file frivolous suits, since someone could work for months/years, and even pay large amounts of money out for experts, physicians, etc., and not make anything. The lawyers who routinely file frivolous suits would soon be bankrupted and out of business. I agree this liability smacks of being unjust, but it is not because of any common law court pronouncements, it is because the popularly elected legislature sought to exempt employers from liability for the injuries of their attorneys (workers compensation) and to hold the owner of a vehicle responsible for damages caused by someone they permit to use their vehicle (Owner's liability laws). Instead of cursing the darkness and bitching about it, why not try to get the laws changed.

Indeed, FWIW, that appears to be just what the court did in ruling that an indemnification applied, trying to place the liability with the party most responsible. But I guess you'd prefer the court not legislate and just follow the law, right?

Gob--

one which keeps half this board in gainful, (but not productive,) work

FWIW, not all lawyers in the US are litigators; I've practiced for decades and have been in court very little (even when I had my own practice), preferring to draft agreements and make deals that reflect the intent of the parties to avoid misunderstandings (I have also worked a lot with alternate dispute resolution, and have served as a mediator on many occasions, helping to settle complex cases to the satisfaction of all parties). I think litigation is, and should be, a last resort, but I'd far rather have people go to court than settle it cowboy style with pistols outside the bar. Indeed, the courts are often very pushy to get the litigants to settle after filing suit, as they realize that a settlement acceptable (or, at the very least, not unacceptable) to both has the best chance of being a lasting one. Of course, sometime one side (often an insurer) will avoid settlement and the case needs to be heard, but there are a lot of steps toward settlement that precede that. I don't see any of that being "unproductive", at least anymore than other professional services are, from accountants seeking to document transactions and limiting tax liability to physicians monitoring health to be sure they can catch problems before they become big (sure, none are producing anything, but then they are protecting a lot).

I can't speak for all my legal brethren on this board, but I would think they'd all agree that, despite the abuses that sometimes occur, generally work.

[Jarlaxle]

You're responding to something you already responded to, and STILL running away from the issue. Try telling me what supports YOUR opinion rather than making up shit about what I supposedly want. Why is this lawsuit "stupid"?

Mostly, because the only one blameless in this shitshow is the guy getting sued!

So you think the guy who got killed is to be blamed for his own death? Should his estate and his widow/children have no right to fair compensation for the value of his life and injuries?

From the responsible party, sure. From a guy who had nothing to do with it, hell no.

You're correct...the dead guy is also blameless.

How is the automobile owner facing "complete ruin"? He has insurance. His insurance company is seeking indemnification from the auto dealership (and its insurer) as the at-fault party, so that the dealership will be on the hook for damages caused by its own negligence. The lawyers in this case are actually trying to place responsibility where it belongs as a matter of common sense. What is wrong with that?

I'd bet he doesn't have $15 million worth of insurance. "Seeking indemnification" doesn't mean he gets it. And (yet again), he still, if he has any sense, has to pay a lawyer!

What about any of this is a "lottery"?

I will not dignify that with an answer.

Meaning you have no answer.

No-meaning you know EXACTLY what "lawsuit lottery" means, and pretending otherwise is beneath you.

How does a "loser pays all legal expenses" rule factor into this at all?

I can't believe I need to explain something this obvious, but: it makes people think twice before filing ridiculous lawsuits. Off the top of my head, a guy crashed his Ducati (due to his own screw-up) at Laguna Seca, and (despite signing a waiver...because, well, riding a motorcycle at a track day is inherently dangerous) sued not only the track day organizer, but the track operator, the county (who owns the land), and...Mazda, because at the time, they had naming rights for the facility. He was another one trying for a lawsuit lottery-coincidentally, he was also asking for $15 million.

First, we're not talking about some other case in a different state with different laws and different liability issues; we're talking about the case you posted in the OP.

Whooooooosssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Similarly-ridiculous case, similarly-ridiculous claims, similar approach to naming defendants who had nothing to do with what happened. Fortunately, the case was dismissed...though I'm sure at considerable cost to Laguna Seca raceway. The jackass who crashed should be on the hook for the track's and the track day organizer's legal bills (six figures). Just defending the suit resulted in the track day organizer going out of business. (Directly from a track day organizer: even BEFORE this asshole tried to cash in, HALF their operating cost is insurance.)

Second, you still haven't explained why this lawsuit is "ridiculous," especially since this is exactly what the Michigan auto statute requires. What part of this lawsuit is ridiculous? The widow seeking compensation for her dead husband and family? Or the auto owner seeking indemnification from the dealership? Should either have "thought twice" and not pursued any claim here?

One more time: the one being sued is the only living person involved who is blameless!

And here's the kicker, just for you: The Michigan auto statute as it stands today, which is driving this very litigation, is itself the product of "tort reform" legislation passed in 1995. So clearly "tort reform" is the galaxy-brain solution to such ridiculous lawsuits.

Loser pays is part of the solution.

Lawyers are the single biggest problem in history.