As it should be.
Do not ever say you are a rescue diver
- Thread starter Dody
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
As it should be.
And because there's no punitive damages. You sue for your losses, no more.
As I understand it, you sue in the 'States a bit like people buy lottery tickets.
Rest of the world sees this as strange as you're all paranoid about being sued so "ban" things whereas the rest of the world just gets on with it.
This is WAY off topic, and I'm not an attorney, but I think that it's a bit of an oversimplification to just be cynical and say that the US legal system is a lottery for people to score big bucks from minimal injuries. Yeah, sure, there are some well publicized cases of abuse. But just think about these two problems:
1) Lose a case, you have to pay the other side's legal fees? That basically means that the court system is beyond the reach of most normal people. If you get shafted by some big company, most working people aren't going to risk suing - even if they KNOW that they are in the right - because if the other side has better lawyers they could end up in debt for the rest of their lives for those legal fees. So they just suck it up.
2) No punitive damages? That means that anyone with deep pockets can just do what they want. "Punishable by a fine" means "legal for rich people". If you have a company that is doing something egregiously wrong or unsafe, if there was no risk of punitive damages, they could just include the cost of paying damages into their budget for whatever they were doing. I see delivery trucks double parked all the time in NYC, the owners just include the cost of those tickets into their overhead. But that doesn't help when they are blocking you in or blocking a fire hydrant.
A lot of people pointed to Liebeck vs. McDonalds as the classic example of this. And the common take on this is almost always wrong. When this woman sued, McDonalds had an unsafe practice that had already injured seven HUNDRED other people, and they had no interest in changing it
1) Lose a case, you have to pay the other side's legal fees? That basically means that the court system is beyond the reach of most normal people. If you get shafted by some big company, most working people aren't going to risk suing - even if they KNOW that they are in the right - because if the other side has better lawyers they could end up in debt for the rest of their lives for those legal fees. So they just suck it up.
2) No punitive damages? That means that anyone with deep pockets can just do what they want. "Punishable by a fine" means "legal for rich people". If you have a company that is doing something egregiously wrong or unsafe, if there was no risk of punitive damages, they could just include the cost of paying damages into their budget for whatever they were doing. I see delivery trucks double parked all the time in NYC, the owners just include the cost of those tickets into their overhead. But that doesn't help when they are blocking you in or blocking a fire hydrant.
A lot of people pointed to Liebeck vs. McDonalds as the classic example of this. And the common take on this is almost always wrong. When this woman sued, McDonalds had an unsafe practice that had already injured seven HUNDRED other people, and they had no interest in changing it
Big Dan K
Contributor
The juries are the main problem. They are sympathetic to crying families who have lost loved ones and survivors with graphic injury pictures. Even then one is unlikely to get sued if they do not have recoverable assets or significant insurance policies. But a tour operator is only obligated to provide a level of safety that is reasonable for the group they are taking out. The dive op could likely get sued because they are insured and a lawyer could argue that they should have maintained visual contact with the divers as they hit the water. But a customer with a RD cert? Where is the obligation to risk your life, and the lives of anyone who would then need to rescue you, in order to save another diver when you have determined the rescue to be unsafe?
Belzelbub
Contributor
Agreed. For a standard case that one party just loses, paying the other party's legal fees seems excessive. I would, however, support this for cases involving frivolous lawsuits. Ideally, they wouldn't progress to the point where attorneys are involved.
Recent case in point. A California man filed a lawsuit against the makers of Texas Pete hot sauce. The complaint was because Texas Pete is not actually made in Texas. I don't know if this is going to actually go anywhere, but that fits my definition of frivolous.
Agreed again. Compensatory damages are generally what the plaintiff is looking for. Compensation for the wrong. Punitive damages are awarded when the court determines that the actions of the defendant go well beyond straight liability. This would be for knowing about the problem that led to the lawsuit, and either not doing anything about it, or covering it up.
Funny. I was actually going to refer to this lawsuit in my reply as well. Lots of people point to this as an example of ridiculous awards well beyond what was warranted. However, this does seem to be the right case as there had been many opportunities for McDonald's to correct the problem. They decided not to, and the court decided that their inaction went well beyond just liability.
Yup, exactly..!
One more off topic link. Not sure if you guys watch "Adam Ruins Everything", but it's a great series. Here he is breaking down Liebeck:
drrich2
Contributor
Good points, but consider this. Let's say someone files a lawsuit against me for a large amount. Obviously I have to 'lawyer up' in self-defense. Now let's stay they lose, and I 'win.'
Why do I have to pay my legal fees for a case where it wasn't established I engaged in wrong doing?
Is it not excessive that I had to pay expensive legal fees when not only was it not established that I did anything unlawful, but unlike the other party I did not choose to initiate the lawsuit?
Not all lawsuits are against large multinational corporations with deep pockets.
Belzelbub
Contributor
I hear you. It's not perfect in either scenario.
To be honest, though, you don't have to lawyer up. You could defend yourself. Not advised, but it's possible. You hire a lawyer to limit your damages.
While a loser pays system does prevent many frivolous lawsuits, it does likely also prevent some legitimate lawsuits from moving forward. The plaintiff may not be in a position to be able to afford the legal fees.
Insurance would be the right answer. Homeowner, business, auto, or umbrella. Then if you are sued, let your insurance handle it.
Right, exactly... not a perfect system, but there are checks and balances.
The idea that anyone can sue anyone for anything is true. But the counterweight to that is that it's expensive to sue. Lawyers either work on contingency or on retainer. So if someone is going to make a baseless claim against you, they have to find someone to file the suit (unless they are a lawyer, in which case they are paying with their time).
No lawyer is going to want to take a contingency case that they might lose, spending a lot of their time and effort and getting nothing back. And few people are willing to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars on retainer to bring a weak case against someone...
One of my electrical engineering professors had her patents violated continuously. Corporations just outspent her with appeals.
She just gave up inventing and she was freaking brilliant. There are repercussions to the system.
For Europe, is there a cap in the legal fees a defense can receive from the unsuccessful plaintiff? It shouldn't be unlimited, but rather an reasonable amount. Of course, who decides what is reasonable?
Similar threads
