4 ms·

How about we reduce the court load by instituting loser-pays tort reform.

kyrieeschaton 8y ago
This effectively makes it impossible for a small plaintiff (or defendant!) to justify the risk of fighting anyone with a multi million dollar legal team at their disposal.
- ldiracdelta 8y ago
  If the case is likely to win, then a lawyer or investor will pony up his own cash for a cut of the outcome. This means that only cases that people feel are overwhelming will be litigated. Marginal cases to bleed your enemy dry do not work, because they work against you.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    Isn't that a bad thing since likely to win doesn't map directly to being right? For example, even if I was seriously wronged, my opponent could have access to greater legal resources, or my position could be socially unpopular, or the situation could be difficult to prove, etc.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    then a lawyer or investor will pony up his own cash for a cut of the outcome. This is outright illegal in countries where lawyers are not allowed to work on contingency and may get a lawyer barred.
- jsmith99 8y ago
  In the UK, claimants using a 'no win no fee' deal usually buy After The Event insurance to protect them against having to pay the other sides' costs.
- arethuza 8y ago
  Certainly litigation in the UK can be very difficult to stop once started as if either side gives up there is a good chance they will be expected to pay the other sides fees up to that point.
bloak 8y ago
Beware of this. "Loser pays", implemented literally, would be a bad thing. What you should do, which is what England has, is "the party whose unreasonable behaviour led to the case coming to court pays". Can someone suggest a concise way of expressing that, to help voters avoid a bad tort reform? In case it's not obvious, here's an example of where it matters. Alice damages Bob's car. Bob offers to settle for £100. Alice says, no, I want £500. Bob says, don't be silly, you can have £150, though that's too much, in my opinion. Alice sues Bob. The court decides that Alice should be compensated, so Alice "wins", and damages should be £80. Who should pay the court costs of £500? (And what if the damages were £300?) Perhaps everyone already understands that "loser pays" means "the party whose unreasonable behaviour led to the case coming to court pays", but I can't help being suspicious that a reform of the legal system that would drastically reduce the number of cases coming to court might be sabotaged in some way by the people with vested interests who will implement it.
- morganvachon 8y ago
  > In case it's not obvious, here's an example of where it matters. Alice damages Bob's car. Bob offers to settle for £100. Alice says, no, I want £500. Bob says, don't be silly, you can have £150, though that's too much, in my opinion. Alice sues Bob. The court decides that Alice should be compensated, so Alice "wins", and damages should be £80. Who should pay the court costs of £500? (And what if the damages were £300?) Ok, you lost me on the part where the at-fault party (Alice) is owed compensation by the not-at-fault party (Bob). This makes absolutely no sense.
  - pif 8y ago
    > Alice damages Bob's car. He just inverted the names: Bob damages Alice's car.

This effectively makes it impossible for a small plaintiff (or defendant!) to justify the risk of fighting anyone with a multi million dollar legal team at their disposal.

ldiracdelta 8y ago
If the case is likely to win, then a lawyer or investor will pony up his own cash for a cut of the outcome. This means that only cases that people feel are overwhelming will be litigated. Marginal cases to bleed your enemy dry do not work, because they work against you.
- harimau777 8y ago
  Isn't that a bad thing since likely to win doesn't map directly to being right? For example, even if I was seriously wronged, my opponent could have access to greater legal resources, or my position could be socially unpopular, or the situation could be difficult to prove, etc.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  then a lawyer or investor will pony up his own cash for a cut of the outcome. This is outright illegal in countries where lawyers are not allowed to work on contingency and may get a lawyer barred.
jsmith99 8y ago
In the UK, claimants using a 'no win no fee' deal usually buy After The Event insurance to protect them against having to pay the other sides' costs.
arethuza 8y ago
Certainly litigation in the UK can be very difficult to stop once started as if either side gives up there is a good chance they will be expected to pay the other sides fees up to that point.

bloak 8y ago

Beware of this. "Loser pays", implemented literally, would be a bad thing. What you should do, which is what England has, is "the party whose unreasonable behaviour led to the case coming to court pays". Can someone suggest a concise way of expressing that, to help voters avoid a bad tort reform? In case it's not obvious, here's an example of where it matters. Alice damages Bob's car. Bob offers to settle for £100. Alice says, no, I want £500. Bob says, don't be silly, you can have £150, though that's too much, in my opinion. Alice sues Bob. The court decides that Alice should be compensated, so Alice "wins", and damages should be £80. Who should pay the court costs of £500? (And what if the damages were £300?) Perhaps everyone already understands that "loser pays" means "the party whose unreasonable behaviour led to the case coming to court pays", but I can't help being suspicious that a reform of the legal system that would drastically reduce the number of cases coming to court might be sabotaged in some way by the people with vested interests who will implement it.

morganvachon 8y ago
> In case it's not obvious, here's an example of where it matters. Alice damages Bob's car. Bob offers to settle for £100. Alice says, no, I want £500. Bob says, don't be silly, you can have £150, though that's too much, in my opinion. Alice sues Bob. The court decides that Alice should be compensated, so Alice "wins", and damages should be £80. Who should pay the court costs of £500? (And what if the damages were £300?) Ok, you lost me on the part where the at-fault party (Alice) is owed compensation by the not-at-fault party (Bob). This makes absolutely no sense.
- pif 8y ago
  > Alice damages Bob's car. He just inverted the names: Bob damages Alice's car.