Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
We have GOT to do something about litigation....
- Thread starter curling
- Start date
Testosterone boy
New member
The fact that someone gets sured says nothing about their being able to afford. it. Idiots think that having a business = deep pockets. Businesses have well over a 95% failre rate at a few years.spike1205 said:
We wind up charging a lot more for the same service and quit doing business with ordinary consumers as quick as we can.
People get over on businesses big time. You start out wanting to provida a great service at a great price, after you have been fucked enough..........you just charge quite a bit for stuff you didn't use to.
Nothing worse than getting threatened over something you tossed in for free or at cost.
You can easily lose a lawsuit despite being close to broke. The judge does not look at your bank account.
Testosterone boy
New member
I meant business owners.........not the unemployed.Bullit said:
Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
if it;s not malpractice, it's not malpractice.
Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough, since everyone likes a settlement, especially lawyers who get a fee without having to "win" anything.
It is, or it isn't. You win, or you lose.
primetime21 said:
if it;s not malpractice, it's not malpractice.
Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough, since everyone likes a settlement, especially lawyers who get a fee without having to "win" anything.
It is, or it isn't. You win, or you lose.
Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
It's not about what is malpractice, and what isn't malpractice. It's about whether you can convince a jury that it's malpractice.
A settlement is like a bird in hand - it's better than two in the bush. Granted, it will be lower than a jury verdict - but there's a big possibility that the jury might find for defendant.
A settlement gets the plaintiff a smaller lump sum, and saves him the aggravation, time, and money involved with discovery, motion practice, etc.
MattTheSkywalker said:
It's not about what is malpractice, and what isn't malpractice. It's about whether you can convince a jury that it's malpractice.
A settlement is like a bird in hand - it's better than two in the bush. Granted, it will be lower than a jury verdict - but there's a big possibility that the jury might find for defendant.
A settlement gets the plaintiff a smaller lump sum, and saves him the aggravation, time, and money involved with discovery, motion practice, etc.
primetime21
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
You obviously have something so wedged up your ass about lawyers, that nothing anyone says that defends the occupation will matter to you.
The fact is that cases are rarely black and white. if they were black and white you wouldnt need judges and juries.
Your implications that cases that arent 100 percent shouldnt go to trial is idiotic. You think people who go to court must be 100 PERCENT positive that they will win? give me a break.
You go to court if you think you have been wronged. It is then the judge or jury to determine if the case is worthwhile. If the case is total bullshit, the opposing side will make a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint before much money has been spent.
As for this statement that you made "Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough." What is your problem? You are coming off like T-boy (no offense T-boy). No one said that almost is enough. But "Maybe" is enough to bring a case to court. But OF COURSE "maybe" is NOT enough to win at trial. Who said it was? No one even inferred that.
The fact is that judges/juries are here to resolve disputes. You have 2 sides that think differently. One side thinks the doctor made no mistake, while the other side thinks that the doctor committed malpractice. So they go to a judge/jury to find out who is right. GREAT SYSTEM!!!
MattTheSkywalker said:
You obviously have something so wedged up your ass about lawyers, that nothing anyone says that defends the occupation will matter to you.
The fact is that cases are rarely black and white. if they were black and white you wouldnt need judges and juries.
Your implications that cases that arent 100 percent shouldnt go to trial is idiotic. You think people who go to court must be 100 PERCENT positive that they will win? give me a break.
You go to court if you think you have been wronged. It is then the judge or jury to determine if the case is worthwhile. If the case is total bullshit, the opposing side will make a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint before much money has been spent.
As for this statement that you made "Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough." What is your problem? You are coming off like T-boy (no offense T-boy). No one said that almost is enough. But "Maybe" is enough to bring a case to court. But OF COURSE "maybe" is NOT enough to win at trial. Who said it was? No one even inferred that.
The fact is that judges/juries are here to resolve disputes. You have 2 sides that think differently. One side thinks the doctor made no mistake, while the other side thinks that the doctor committed malpractice. So they go to a judge/jury to find out who is right. GREAT SYSTEM!!!
Similar threads
