4 ms·

Regardless of whether it is the optimal system for encouraging liability minimizing practices, other developed countries have found a perfect mechanism either.

by rz2k 9y ago

Regardless of whether it is the optimal system for encouraging liability minimizing practices, other developed countries have found a perfect mechanism either. American owners of diesel VWs might have their cars bought back from them and be offered up to $10k in additional compensation. Furthermore VW has portrayed this as an obvious decision they made because they love their customers and want to make things right again. The same customers in Germany might get a free "upgrade" at the dealership which reduces airflow so that the car is compliant with pollution regulations, but less powerful.

bradleyjg 9y ago
You don't need American style, lawyer dominated, opt-out class actions in order to right a wrong that caused $10k in damages to each consumer. You could use regular old joinder.
- pdabbadabba 9y ago
  How does joinder solve the problem? You still need to motivate all those individual plaintiffs to hire a lawyer and sue, then get a court to join each one (with, presumably, opposition from the defendant every time), and then you don't have the benefit of the streamlined class action procedural rules (streamlined relative to a case with several thousand individual plaintiffs, that is). And you still have to pay the lawyers! I'm not here to say that class actions are the best, or even a good way of regulating, but I really don't see how the joinder rules offer a useful solution.
  - bradleyjg 9y ago
    I don't think the situation described by rz2k is a problem of regulating. The problem he points out is not that Germany didn't sufficiently punish Volkswagen -- though it might not have -- but that the hurt German consumers were not made whole. In terms of being made whole for a substantial tort (on the order of $10k) I don't think standard american tort litigation with joinder is perfect, but I think it is a better base to build upon than rule 23 litigation. With injuries of that size I think it is practical and desirable for cases to be client driven rather than hoping a judge reviewing a settlement will adequately protect the interest of the class as against those of class counsel.

by rz2k 9y ago

bradleyjg 9y ago

You don't need American style, lawyer dominated, opt-out class actions in order to right a wrong that caused $10k in damages to each consumer. You could use regular old joinder.

pdabbadabba 9y ago
How does joinder solve the problem? You still need to motivate all those individual plaintiffs to hire a lawyer and sue, then get a court to join each one (with, presumably, opposition from the defendant every time), and then you don't have the benefit of the streamlined class action procedural rules (streamlined relative to a case with several thousand individual plaintiffs, that is). And you still have to pay the lawyers! I'm not here to say that class actions are the best, or even a good way of regulating, but I really don't see how the joinder rules offer a useful solution.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  I don't think the situation described by rz2k is a problem of regulating. The problem he points out is not that Germany didn't sufficiently punish Volkswagen -- though it might not have -- but that the hurt German consumers were not made whole. In terms of being made whole for a substantial tort (on the order of $10k) I don't think standard american tort litigation with joinder is perfect, but I think it is a better base to build upon than rule 23 litigation. With injuries of that size I think it is practical and desirable for cases to be client driven rather than hoping a judge reviewing a settlement will adequately protect the interest of the class as against those of class counsel.