The Cellar - View Single Post

yesman065 · 11-27-2006, 07:36 AM

Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award. If the lawyer is just trying to get rich, then yes they will be sadly underpaid. The courts will also have less cases to try as the number of "get rich quick" frivolous lawsuits will vastly diminish. Blaming lawyers has nothing to do with it. Then again, after my experience with lawyers, I'm not so sure thats a bad thing.

I think a larger problem is the people that are sitting on these juries. From what I can gather, they do not represent a fair "jury of peers." Many people get off without serving on juries because of other issues they feel are more important or because their viewpoints are not condusive to one side or the other. This leaves a group of people who cn be easily swayed either way and come up with outrageous and ill-conceived verdicts. One, just one example would be the O.J. Simpson case. There are many many more to support this argument as well.

11-27-2006, 07:36 AM	#77
yesman065 Banned - Self Imposed Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,847	Sorry I was away and couldn't respond earlier, but. . . When did the definition "tort reform = blame lawyers" become a fact. I thought tort reform was going to limit the amount of compensation that could be received by the plaintiff. Thereby creating a known award. This will not blame lawyers, it will simply reduce the rediculous amount that some ill-informed jurys emotionally can award. If the lawyer is just trying to get rich, then yes they will be sadly underpaid. The courts will also have less cases to try as the number of "get rich quick" frivolous lawsuits will vastly diminish. Blaming lawyers has nothing to do with it. Then again, after my experience with lawyers, I'm not so sure thats a bad thing. I think a larger problem is the people that are sitting on these juries. From what I can gather, they do not represent a fair "jury of peers." Many people get off without serving on juries because of other issues they feel are more important or because their viewpoints are not condusive to one side or the other. This leaves a group of people who cn be easily swayed either way and come up with outrageous and ill-conceived verdicts. One, just one example would be the O.J. Simpson case. There are many many more to support this argument as well. Last edited by yesman065; 11-27-2006 at 07:40 AM.