What do us Brits set a side 3 Billion ukp for??

[fall-apart]

... quoth the lawyer...

Anyways, I tend to look at it from the other side - my mother was a doctor, so I heard a lot about how expensive it would be to practice medicine in the US because of the malpractice insurance.  I'm a teacher and I have to carry $2 million personal liability insurance in case (God forbid) a student should ever accuse me of impropriety or someone get hurt while I was there.

I agree that many companies will listen to a large settlement more than to some consumer complaints, but do you really think the looming threat of a malpractice suit is what keeps doctors paying attention?  Or that I'm only vigilant because I know some parent might decide that I'm their next paycheque?

In the majority of cases brought against school divisions, the lawyer for the claimant has insinuated to the jury that they're not really hurting the school to award a large settlement )after all, who wants to close down a school with a lawsuit award), but that they're sticking it to the insurance company.  Aside from being patently false (who does the insurance company recoup it's losses from?), they are asking the jury to make a decision based on their emotions vis-a-vis an insurance company.  I say, let a jury decide guilt or innocence if they have to be involved at all, and let a judge come up with the award value.

[Mefistofeles]

Quote
Companies only respond to $$$$ and lots of it.

Jasper lawyers aren't any different.  A lawyer would rather sue for $4,000,000 rather than $400,000, even if the $400,000 settlement is adequate to cover expenses.    

Quote
Jurors don't just develope feelings

Jasper you know that's not true.  Jurors are human beings; like judges with emotions.   They have prejudices, hates and fears.   Despite what the legal profession may want to say about the objectivity of lawyers and judges they are still people filled with faults and shortcomings.

I'm not saying that lawyers, judges and juries should be dispensed with I'm saying that they are imperfect and not the guardians of rightousness as you would have us believe.   Lawyers are just as greedy as the corporations they sue because they have a vested financial interest in the outcome of a case like the corporation; they are simply on the other side of the equation.  

 

[Jasper]

It's not a perfect system by anymeans, but I would not trade it for any other out there.

Sure, lawyers respond to money as well. However your using it in the wrong context. Attorneys are more likely to take on a case with a higher demand ($4 million v. $4 thousand) but they still have to work for it nevertheless. My comment about companies only responding to money is different. The only way you can "force" these companies to change is with a big money verdict. It's the only thing they understand.  

[Mefistofeles]

Quote
The only way you can "force" these companies to change is with a big money verdict. It's the only thing they understand.

Let's make this argument fun and add the take out company and put in lawyers:

The only way you can "force" these lawyers  to change is with a big money verdict. It's the only thing they understand.

I think the statement is logically true.  Lawyers respond to big money and act accrodinglu.

However I think your conclusion is flawed because I would argue that companies hate bad press even more than lawsuits.  Lawsuits can be amortized over a number of years and simply another cost of doing business.

If lawyers were able to exact settlements where the majority of the settlement went into the company advertising its list of evils and faults I think even more good would be done.  

You also have to ask yourself is the world better now than it was 10 or 20 years ago?  Legal liability and insurance costs have become a huge issue now for playgrounds and activities involving children.   Teachers can literally lose their jobs if they touch a child?  Is this the ideal world that lawyers have been working towards? Perhaps the world is better now than it was then but we had to make some trade offs which have reduced our quality of life.  

I think the world is now a much more fearful place now than the past people are much more afraid of being sued than they were in the past.  

Is it worth it?  I don't think so; companies still do evil (they just amortize it over a longer period now) and people live in fear of lawsuits.

An implicit assumption that the founders of this country had was the existence of "goodness" and "civic duty".   Without goodness and civic duty even the finest legal system will operate in perverse and unpredictable ways.   Corporations need goodness and civic duty as much as lawyers to do their job properly.  If those two virutes die then both lawyers and corporations will not be able to serve the public good.