5 ms·

So true. And the United States has 2x the number of civil cases per capita than the next most litigious country, The United Kingdom. Tort reform just isn’t a se

So true. And the United States has 2x the number of civil cases per capita than the next most litigious country, The United Kingdom. Tort reform just isn’t a sexy campaign promise either.

Causality1 7y ago
I've always wondered why there's not a federal law requiring that the losing party of a suit is required to pay the winner's legal fees, up to an amount equal to what the losing party itself spent.
- dooglius 7y ago
  "The rationale for the American rule is that people should not be discouraged from seeking redress for perceived wrongs in court or from trying to extend coverage of the law. The rationale continues that society would suffer if a person was unwilling to pursue a meritorious claim merely because that person would have to pay the defendant's expenses if they lost." via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
  - Causality1 7y ago
    Seems like it would have the opposite effect, discouraging everyone but the wealthy from filing claims. 60% of Americans don't have an extra thousand dollars, let alone the means to support real legal representation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- TrackerFF 7y ago
  Where I'm from (Scandinavia), we have laws like that. You pay for your and the other sides legal fees. While you rarely, if ever, see cases where losing parties have to pay millions - I personally haven't seen any like that - you can see people having to pay tens to lower hundred thousand $ in legal fees. That can be a substantial sum for regular people, and those circumstances happen when the other party has hired in high-$$$ lawyers, and the case goes on for a while. Especially if there's multiple appeals. So there's always the risk of that.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    Seems like that would have the undesirable effect of making large corporations untouchable by anyone except the government and other large corporations. If you want to sue a big company for treating you poorly, you risk a very high price of you lose.
    - yub 7y ago
      That’s the point of the American Rule - every side pays their own way.
    - RichEO 7y ago
      That only holds if the laws allow the large corporation to treat people unfairly.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        Even if the law is fair in 99.9% of the cases, if that 0.1% means you're on the hook for more than you can afford, it's rational not to risk it.
liability 7y ago
If "lawyer" were a political party, they would control the Senate. Perhaps the American legislature goes too easy on the lawsuit industry out of some form of professional courtesy.
elliekelly 7y ago
The US is unusual in that if you bring a civil suit and lose you don’t have to compensate the other party for their legal fees. Unusually high medical bills in the US are also probably a contributing factor. I’d be curious to see how often a civil suit is brought after a car accident in EU vs US.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  > I’d be curious to see how often a civil suit is brought after a car accident in EU vs US. Depends on the country of course (UK is probably closer to USA instead of the rest of EU with civil law), but in general that would very rarely result in a dispute that needs to be resolved in court. The mandatory liability insurance would cover the usual claims without a civil suit, and unusual claims are unlikely to succeed and expensive to pursue, so they aren't.
- fourthark 7y ago
  It's pretty common after an auto accident in the US (at least in no-fault states) to sue the insurance company for pain and suffering. They will only cover medical bills and damages otherwise. Vis the derogatory term "ambulance chasers" for personal injury lawyers.

So true. And the United States has 2x the number of civil cases per capita than the next most litigious country, The United Kingdom. Tort reform just isn’t a sexy campaign promise either.

Causality1 7y ago

I've always wondered why there's not a federal law requiring that the losing party of a suit is required to pay the winner's legal fees, up to an amount equal to what the losing party itself spent.

dooglius 7y ago
"The rationale for the American rule is that people should not be discouraged from seeking redress for perceived wrongs in court or from trying to extend coverage of the law. The rationale continues that society would suffer if a person was unwilling to pursue a meritorious claim merely because that person would have to pay the defendant's expenses if they lost." via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
- Causality1 7y ago
  Seems like it would have the opposite effect, discouraging everyone but the wealthy from filing claims. 60% of Americans don't have an extra thousand dollars, let alone the means to support real legal representation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
TrackerFF 7y ago
Where I'm from (Scandinavia), we have laws like that. You pay for your and the other sides legal fees. While you rarely, if ever, see cases where losing parties have to pay millions - I personally haven't seen any like that - you can see people having to pay tens to lower hundred thousand $ in legal fees. That can be a substantial sum for regular people, and those circumstances happen when the other party has hired in high-$$$ lawyers, and the case goes on for a while. Especially if there's multiple appeals. So there's always the risk of that.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Seems like that would have the undesirable effect of making large corporations untouchable by anyone except the government and other large corporations. If you want to sue a big company for treating you poorly, you risk a very high price of you lose.
  - yub 7y ago
    That’s the point of the American Rule - every side pays their own way.
  - RichEO 7y ago
    That only holds if the laws allow the large corporation to treat people unfairly.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Even if the law is fair in 99.9% of the cases, if that 0.1% means you're on the hook for more than you can afford, it's rational not to risk it.

liability 7y ago

If "lawyer" were a political party, they would control the Senate. Perhaps the American legislature goes too easy on the lawsuit industry out of some form of professional courtesy.

elliekelly 7y ago

The US is unusual in that if you bring a civil suit and lose you don’t have to compensate the other party for their legal fees. Unusually high medical bills in the US are also probably a contributing factor. I’d be curious to see how often a civil suit is brought after a car accident in EU vs US.

PeterisP 7y ago
> I’d be curious to see how often a civil suit is brought after a car accident in EU vs US. Depends on the country of course (UK is probably closer to USA instead of the rest of EU with civil law), but in general that would very rarely result in a dispute that needs to be resolved in court. The mandatory liability insurance would cover the usual claims without a civil suit, and unusual claims are unlikely to succeed and expensive to pursue, so they aren't.
fourthark 7y ago
It's pretty common after an auto accident in the US (at least in no-fault states) to sue the insurance company for pain and suffering. They will only cover medical bills and damages otherwise. Vis the derogatory term "ambulance chasers" for personal injury lawyers.