4 ms·

Imagine suing General Motors because of a faulty car. General Motors hires an army of experts and the best attorneys. In the event of loser pays, the apparent v

Imagine suing General Motors because of a faulty car. General Motors hires an army of experts and the best attorneys. In the event of loser pays, the apparent victim is now on the hook for perhaps a million dollars. That would shut down all legitimate product liability lawsuits in an instant.

Hamuko 7y ago
Well, that's assuming that legitimate product liability lawsuits lose in the court.
- ip26 7y ago
  Just because you are right doesn't guarantee you'll win. You feeling lucky?
  - int_19h 7y ago
    With our existing system, you have to ask the same question every time you sue anybody, or do something that might cause somebody else to sue you, because you can get financially ruined even if you win.
samatman 7y ago
There is a game-theoretic optimal solution to this: The loser must pay up to the amount they themselves spent on prosecuting the case, but no more. So General Motors would have to pay the full cost of the plaintiff's litigation if they lost, while the plaintiff would have to pay their costs, plus an equivalent amount to GM. This is of course independent of compensation and damages awarded.
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
Which is why there is a definition of reasonable costs, and that's what you get reimbursed. And if that is a million dollars, in that case: Should someone be able to cause a million dollars' worth of damage with a frivolous lawsuit without being liable for it? Patent trolls are one of the things that would work significantly less well in a loser-pays scenario. Or to turn your example around: If the car hasn't killed me and I just want my money back, should I be forced to just eat the loss because even if I win, the legal costs will be higher?
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  What GM argues is reasonable could be many millions of dollars -- they could be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the severity. A judge isn't going to make them work with just 2 associates. Your first question ("Should someone be able to...") is a false dichotomy. The real question is whether we show a preference for being able to sue easily, versus adding more downside. In America, consumer protection is done through lawsuits, especially since the current leadership is underfunding these groups. In general, companies have less approvals before launching a product under the assumption that negligence will cost them a ton of money in class action. That is why class action amounts can be so high - it's the dis-incentive for cutting corners. Yes, patent trolls are an issue. I think there are better ways to reduce that impact (such as a sensible patent system) without harming consumers.
- imtringued 7y ago
  >Patent trolls are one of the things that would work significantly less well in a loser-pays scenario. I'm not sure how that would matter. The patent troll sues 100 companies. Has to pay the legal fees for the 100 processes because all of them have been initiated by the patent troll. The patent troll wins 30 cases. In the American system the patent troll already included the legal fees in his calculations and optimized them for profit but the victims are always stuck with legal fees even if they win. The patent troll basically causes a minimum amount of damage regardless of the outcome. The legal fees are often close to $0 for the patent troll because merely the act of receiving a letter from a lawyer scares startups into paying the settlement fees. Losing a month or two can be devastating for a young company but they can easily recover from losing $20k if it means that they can run their business with no distractions. In the loser pays scenario the patent troll's legal fees would be completely unpredictable in the 70 cases. Losing 70 times might result in bankruptcy of the patent troll and the majority of victims would not be burdened by legal fees. This sub thread is making the assumption that the innocent legal entities (= person or company) are on the losing end but if patent trolls had to be 100% sure that their patents are valid then there would be significantly fewer of them. For the few patent trolls that remain you can't argue that they shouldn't have the right to protect their patents. The patent system might be broken but if you can't enforce patents in valid situations then why even bother with the system?

Hamuko 7y ago

Well, that's assuming that legitimate product liability lawsuits lose in the court.

ip26 7y ago
Just because you are right doesn't guarantee you'll win. You feeling lucky?
- int_19h 7y ago
  With our existing system, you have to ask the same question every time you sue anybody, or do something that might cause somebody else to sue you, because you can get financially ruined even if you win.

samatman 7y ago

There is a game-theoretic optimal solution to this: The loser must pay up to the amount they themselves spent on prosecuting the case, but no more. So General Motors would have to pay the full cost of the plaintiff's litigation if they lost, while the plaintiff would have to pay their costs, plus an equivalent amount to GM. This is of course independent of compensation and damages awarded.

tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago

Which is why there is a definition of reasonable costs, and that's what you get reimbursed. And if that is a million dollars, in that case: Should someone be able to cause a million dollars' worth of damage with a frivolous lawsuit without being liable for it? Patent trolls are one of the things that would work significantly less well in a loser-pays scenario. Or to turn your example around: If the car hasn't killed me and I just want my money back, should I be forced to just eat the loss because even if I win, the legal costs will be higher?

edmundsauto 7y ago
What GM argues is reasonable could be many millions of dollars -- they could be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the severity. A judge isn't going to make them work with just 2 associates. Your first question ("Should someone be able to...") is a false dichotomy. The real question is whether we show a preference for being able to sue easily, versus adding more downside. In America, consumer protection is done through lawsuits, especially since the current leadership is underfunding these groups. In general, companies have less approvals before launching a product under the assumption that negligence will cost them a ton of money in class action. That is why class action amounts can be so high - it's the dis-incentive for cutting corners. Yes, patent trolls are an issue. I think there are better ways to reduce that impact (such as a sensible patent system) without harming consumers.
imtringued 7y ago
>Patent trolls are one of the things that would work significantly less well in a loser-pays scenario. I'm not sure how that would matter. The patent troll sues 100 companies. Has to pay the legal fees for the 100 processes because all of them have been initiated by the patent troll. The patent troll wins 30 cases. In the American system the patent troll already included the legal fees in his calculations and optimized them for profit but the victims are always stuck with legal fees even if they win. The patent troll basically causes a minimum amount of damage regardless of the outcome. The legal fees are often close to $0 for the patent troll because merely the act of receiving a letter from a lawyer scares startups into paying the settlement fees. Losing a month or two can be devastating for a young company but they can easily recover from losing $20k if it means that they can run their business with no distractions. In the loser pays scenario the patent troll's legal fees would be completely unpredictable in the 70 cases. Losing 70 times might result in bankruptcy of the patent troll and the majority of victims would not be burdened by legal fees. This sub thread is making the assumption that the innocent legal entities (= person or company) are on the losing end but if patent trolls had to be 100% sure that their patents are valid then there would be significantly fewer of them. For the few patent trolls that remain you can't argue that they shouldn't have the right to protect their patents. The patent system might be broken but if you can't enforce patents in valid situations then why even bother with the system?