4 ms·

I am not saying that it is absolutely true, just that it is the notion many have: In the US you can do something stupid and blame the manufacturer for the damag

I am not saying that it is absolutely true, just that it is the notion many have: In the US you can do something stupid and blame the manufacturer for the damages, if it was not saying in the manual, that you cannot do it. Combine that with uncapped and ridiculously high compensation claims plus class action lawsuits, which are not a thing over here, and you get a comical impression. As I said, this may not be totally true, but even though the European Commission brings up stupid ideas once in a while ("Let's introduce quotas for netflix!"), I would say on the global scale the image of the EU legal system is quite okay.

kbenson 10y ago
I wasn't trying to imply you were saying it was true, I was just trying to figure out what belief of Europeans you were trying to convey, since that idea is so foreign to me. > class action lawsuits, which are not a thing over here, and you get a comical impression. Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very important need[2]. It gets abused, but so does everything in the legal system, that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea. > As I said, this may not be totally true In this case, I would hazard it's likely totally untrue. You'll likely go to jail for animal abuse, not sue the manufacturer. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_outside_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_out... 2: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/15/474406842/episode-696-class-action http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/15/474406842/episo...
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  >Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very important need[2]. It gets abused, but so does everything in the legal system, that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea. My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It gives the impression, that it is all about the money, not about being right. In Germany there is a thing called "Nebenklage" ("accessory prosecution"), which makes it possible for individuals to join the state attorney, once he started a lawsuit. This is how big scandals are handled and victims can get compensations without lawyers fishing for clients.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It started out as a way to hold companies responsible for small amounts of harm that are spread out to many individuals. Is it worth it for any one individual to sue a company for a $5 product that purposefully misleads consumers? Is it okay for a company to take advantage of consumers in this way purely because they are unlikely to be called upon to account for their misbehavior? That's the reasoning behind a class action lawsuits. Allow many people to join together to act as a counterbalance to companies flaunting their relative position of power. Regulation is the other way to deal with this, but regulation often lags abuse, and why regulate specifically what is already against the law and just needs an enforcement mechanism?
    - distances 10y ago
      The European view of ridiculous US class-action suits is probably mostly thanks to cases where there's a huge number of people in the suit, the lawyer gets free hands, and the result is $5 compensation and a movie ticket (upon written request accompanied by proof of purchase). The lawyer's cut is $3 million in legal fees, paid by the company to avoid a larger settlement. This was probably an exaggeration, but that's the image one gets.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Even that serves a purpose. If you view the case as specifically to compensate people for the wrong, then it seems ridiculous, but if it's to make people feel like the company had to pay for their mistake and/or disincentivize the behavior in that and other companies, it serves a purpose. Do lawyers get too large a cut? Possibly, but remember that they are sometimes going up against large companies with deep pockets, and these cases may cost lots of money. Do we want to incentivize law firms to take these cases, even if they may not pay off? Yes. Do we want to incentivize them so much that they seek out claimants to create lawsuits for? Probably not, but again, if it keeps companies from trying to circumvent the law, it may not be entirely a bad thing. > The lawyer gets free hands ... The lawyer's cut is $3 million in legal fees, paid by the company to avoid a larger settlement AFAIK there has to be actual named defendants that represent the class, and they would decide on whether to accept a settlement. The lawyers can only advise, not decide. I'm by no means an expert though. Edit: Clarified what I was responding to in second part by including more context.

kbenson 10y ago

I wasn't trying to imply you were saying it was true, I was just trying to figure out what belief of Europeans you were trying to convey, since that idea is so foreign to me. > class action lawsuits, which are not a thing over here, and you get a comical impression. Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very important need[2]. It gets abused, but so does everything in the legal system, that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea. > As I said, this may not be totally true In this case, I would hazard it's likely totally untrue. You'll likely go to jail for animal abuse, not sue the manufacturer. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_outside_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_out... 2: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/15/474406842/episode-696-class-action http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/15/474406842/episo...

allendoerfer 10y ago
>Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very important need[2]. It gets abused, but so does everything in the legal system, that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea. My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It gives the impression, that it is all about the money, not about being right. In Germany there is a thing called "Nebenklage" ("accessory prosecution"), which makes it possible for individuals to join the state attorney, once he started a lawsuit. This is how big scandals are handled and victims can get compensations without lawyers fishing for clients.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It started out as a way to hold companies responsible for small amounts of harm that are spread out to many individuals. Is it worth it for any one individual to sue a company for a $5 product that purposefully misleads consumers? Is it okay for a company to take advantage of consumers in this way purely because they are unlikely to be called upon to account for their misbehavior? That's the reasoning behind a class action lawsuits. Allow many people to join together to act as a counterbalance to companies flaunting their relative position of power. Regulation is the other way to deal with this, but regulation often lags abuse, and why regulate specifically what is already against the law and just needs an enforcement mechanism?
  - distances 10y ago
    The European view of ridiculous US class-action suits is probably mostly thanks to cases where there's a huge number of people in the suit, the lawyer gets free hands, and the result is $5 compensation and a movie ticket (upon written request accompanied by proof of purchase). The lawyer's cut is $3 million in legal fees, paid by the company to avoid a larger settlement. This was probably an exaggeration, but that's the image one gets.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Even that serves a purpose. If you view the case as specifically to compensate people for the wrong, then it seems ridiculous, but if it's to make people feel like the company had to pay for their mistake and/or disincentivize the behavior in that and other companies, it serves a purpose. Do lawyers get too large a cut? Possibly, but remember that they are sometimes going up against large companies with deep pockets, and these cases may cost lots of money. Do we want to incentivize law firms to take these cases, even if they may not pay off? Yes. Do we want to incentivize them so much that they seek out claimants to create lawsuits for? Probably not, but again, if it keeps companies from trying to circumvent the law, it may not be entirely a bad thing. > The lawyer gets free hands ... The lawyer's cut is $3 million in legal fees, paid by the company to avoid a larger settlement AFAIK there has to be actual named defendants that represent the class, and they would decide on whether to accept a settlement. The lawyers can only advise, not decide. I'm by no means an expert though. Edit: Clarified what I was responding to in second part by including more context.