|
Loser pays is at the discretion of the court in which the suit is filed, along with ratio of blame, ie; mother and daughter are 60% at fault, Myspace at 20%, rapist at 20%, so they would conceivably 'win' 40% of the suit amount and the losers would pay the ensuing legal fees as well. But most cases are on a contingency basis, making lawyers ask for exhorbitant amounts. They're always the biggest winners since one way or another, the possibility of them going home emptyhanded is small and when they do, there's another lawsuit tomorrow.
We can say and agree that this and others are stupidly frivilous, wastes court time, which in turn wastes taxpayer money, but as Art pointed out, where would a line be drawn?
Side story: My cousin had plastic surgery-an eyelift and tummy tuck. Her surgeon destroyed her eyes-she couldn't blink. She developed blood clots in her legs from the tuck. She sued because of her eyes(she needed several surgeries to correct them and now has blurred vision), the doctor in the meantime died of AIDS, she continued the suit against his estate, they offered a settlement, her lawyer refused it and insisted on a trial. She lost. They said she went into it voluntarily,so too bad. A logical conclusion, perhaps, although the doctor was incompetent.
I have a feeling the same thing will happen with this, only in this case the mother herself was incompetent in simple protection and guidance of a minor child. Either way, in order to have a system where one is allowed to recover loss, we have to withstand friviolities if we want absolute fairness.
__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.
|