Go Texas!

[looking for knowledge]

Loser Pays

Texas, long considered a dream state for the tort bar, has just enacted the English Rule, i.e. loser pays. Bring a tort action for greenmail and if there's no there there, you're paying the defendant's costs.

 

[nfulton]

Yeah for common sense...Come on Ohio follow suit!

 

[sticksnstones]

I don't know much about this particular law, but if you think the legal system is tilted in favor of plaintiffs, then you need to do some research. As for frivolous lawsuits, they can already be thrown out virtually instantly. All it takes is a simple filing by a defense attorney and a quick ruling by a judge. Happens every day.

Much of this is a red herring by businesses who will never be content until they can engage in any kind of rapacious behavior without consequences.

 

[looking for knowledge]

Tilted judgments or not, the majority of cases are settled out of court due to the cost of going to court vs. settlement in favor of the plaintiffs.

We were sued last year for not having cross country uniforms. One of our parents is an attorney and felt that the cross country team using track uniforms was not fair according to title 9, because the boys football team has their own uniforms. Our district attorney recommended settling out of court, because going to court would have cost more.

Regardless, if the loser pays the fees it should be a win for all, cutting down on ambulance chasing, frivolous suits, and hopefully negligence.

 

[Pipe Smoker]

As for frivolous lawsuits, they can already be thrown out virtually instantly. All it takes is a simple filing by a defense attorney and a quick ruling by a judge. Happens every day.

Not in Philadelphia. Motions for summary judgment are a waste of time. Unless your opponent replies to your motion saying something to the effect “yeah, everything that guy said is true, he should probably be dismissed from this lawsuit” your motion will be denied.

I once had to defend a woman who was driving her car when she was struck by a man who had a heart attack while he was driving in the opposite direction of travel. That man then struck the vehicle that was traveling behind my client. That third driver filed suit against both the gentleman who caused the action and, inexplicably, my client. Everyone who testified agreed that this is how the accident happened, yet two motions for summary judgment were denied. Both times the judge (they're elected in PA) said liability is a question of fact for a jury. Ultimately the trial judge dismissed the case against my client at the time of trial, but this was nearly three and half years after the accident and after more than two years of litigation. In PA we have a rule that allows the victorious party to recover “record costs” but that does not include attorneys fees (record costs are mostly filing fees).

The moral of the story is: make sure you have good insurance.

Don’t get me wrong, though, I don’t support most tort reform. I would honestly rather see the world error in favor of the little guy than in favor of the major corporations (who pay my salary). I would rather deal with a thousand frivolous suits than see one real person precluded from recovering for legitimate injuries because of some overzealous legislation. Beside, it would put me out of a job.