Tort reform, anyone?

May 12, 2003 6:41 AM

In a dispute over a car worth less than $20,000, General Motors sank more than $82,000 in its own legal fees and ... lost. The judge said that average citizens need to feel free to take on automakers with deep pockets and awarded the plaintiff $108,000 in attorney fees in a warranty case.
posted by magullo (12 comments total)

Nothing happens in isolation. Especially litigation. Every lawsuit GM loses is a precedent for future lawsuits. Eventually, enough precedent is established for a class action.
Large corporations and cities are now sued so frequently that as standard policy, many automatically contest everything.
posted by kablam at 7:18 AM on May 12, 2003

Right. Average citizens whose children are attourneys and are willing to take on a case where their fees are not guaranteed to be paid by loser.
posted by blindcarboncopy at 7:45 AM on May 12, 2003

Large corporations and cities are now sued so frequently that as standard policy, many automatically contest everything.

those poor babies. damn greedy consumers are destroying the auto industry.
posted by quonsar at 8:14 AM on May 12, 2003

One of the worst aspects of the US legal system is that each side generally pays for his own legal fees. The British system is that the loser pays the winner's legal fees. For the average person, this is a better system. It makes it hard for corporations to try and bully individuals when their legal case is pretty shaky.

Not saying the UK way is perfect, but maybe it's something the US should look at.
posted by salmacis at 8:38 AM on May 12, 2003

I dunno about the loser-pays system. It sounds nice in theory, but what would happen if this guy had lost? I mean, large corporations could throw millions into a legal defense that would simply scare the plaintiff away out of fear of losing.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:41 AM on May 12, 2003

The guy traded his lemon in for another Cadillac. Incredible.
posted by coelecanth at 8:57 AM on May 12, 2003

Not saying the UK way is perfect, but maybe it's something the US should look at.

What do you think we used for the foundation of our judicial system, it was yours.
The British judicial system works better because it has been updated to the current times, un-like ours.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:19 AM on May 12, 2003

Wanted to add, didn't the lemon laws come about because of a Cadillac owner. Thought the same person also painted lemon on it and posted it on a pole as a billboard.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:21 AM on May 12, 2003

I dunno about the loser-pays system. It sounds nice in theory, but what would happen if this guy had lost? I mean, large corporations could throw millions into a legal defense that would simply scare the plaintiff away out of fear of losing.

Exactly. A loser-pays system discourages people from filing lawsuits, especially people, fighting against a big corporation, who are likely to lose to the legal super-teams the corporations have. However, it would discourage the many frivolous lawsuits clogging judges' dockets these days. It's all about balancing the need for people's grievances to be heard in a judicial setting vs. the need to reduce the amount of silly lawsuits. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, and I don't think one is absolutely superior to the other.
posted by gyc at 9:51 AM on May 12, 2003

A loser-pays system would certainly discourage frivolous lawsuits, but it doesn't seem the best way to do it. Maybe some safeguards against defendants having to go to ANY expense (or maybe even not have to make ANY response) UNTIL a complainant's case passes a pre-review with a judge. With some of the 'silly lawsuits' being SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), it seems more important than ever that people (and even 'big evil corporations') not be forced into merit-less litigation. (One more benefit: with less litigation to be immediately responded to, those 'big evil corps' might actually have to lay-off some of their lawyers... a guy can dream, can't he?)
posted by wendell at 11:36 AM on May 12, 2003

My point about willingness to litigate goes to bizarre extremes. Take for example Wal-Mart, "...was sued 4,851 times last year — or nearly once every two hours, every day of the year."
Wal-Mart's policy is to contest *everything*. But they are not alone. I also mentioned municipalities, who especially because of "percentage liability", may have to pay 99% damages on 1% fault, and whose insurance won't cover things like public swimming pools anymore. If the police screw up a search warrant, smash in your door, and destroy your property, they can't even say "sorry", only "sue us for the damages", by policy.
posted by kablam at 1:36 PM on May 12, 2003

So he went to another dealership, who fixed the problem...
why the hell was he suing Cadillac?
posted by notsnot at 3:18 PM on May 12, 2003