Thread: Lawyers These Days...

Bulls, will you admit you have a strong vested interest and wouldn't recognize a frivolous lawsuit is one arrived in your mail.

I was in an accident, was uninjured, and received a letter from an attorney saying he had a chiropractor who was an expert at finding permanently disabling injuries and said, in red ink, "YOU MIGHT NEVER HAVE TO WORK AGAIN". He was soliciting my business. Had I sued, would you consider that frivolous or just good business?

I was sued in federal court because I did not hire a specific woman for a job. She sued for sexual discrimination and, of course, had a lawyer. The lawyers where I worked wanted to settle because lawyers are always sympathetic to frivolous lawsuits. I refused to settle and we went to court and the federal judge did feel the fact that I had hired a woman for the job made the plaintiffs argument silly. It's my opinion that all the loawyers involved, including the judges, are sympathetic to frivolo8us lawsuits.

An extremely fat man rented a room in my father's motel. Sometime later, Dad heard him screaming and investigated. The fat man was on the floor and couldn't get up. Dad couldn't get him up. Dad and Mom couldn't get him up. Finally, with two other men, they got the fat S.O.B. up so he could race to his lawyer to sue because someone should have gotten his fat ass up faster. My dad didn't lose, of course, but it cost him thousands to defend himself from the legalized extortion.

A lawyer and a man in a wheelchair formed a partnership. The man in the wheelchair goes around with a tape measure and camera and finds alleged violations of ADA. The lawyer promptly files and intent to sue without any warning to the business and just as promply accepts a setlement which he shares with the guy in the wheelchair. To the best of my knowledge, if someone actually decides to fight he drops his complaint. Legalized extortion.

So, you wouldn't set foot on an unsafe deck but if someone does, he has a valid lawsuit?

It's a mess but every yong lawyer wants his shot at the brass ring with bogus lawsuits like John Edwars had and parlayed into $29 million.

come on

bootle rocket stupid

everything else is commentary

i think this case has no merit

stop making a federal case over a guy who was a jackass and an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)

the deck - heck the deck was the least of this guys' problems, I'd say.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Bulls, will you admit you have a strong vested interest and wouldn't recognize a frivolous lawsuit is one arrived in your mail.

Doubtful. I make my living recognizing and defending actions against businesses. Regardless, I'm waiting for someone to explain to me why this lawsuit is supposedly frivolous.

As I said above, I think most people on this thread don't even understand who is suing whom and what they are alleging.

I was in an accident, was uninjured, and received a letter from an attorney saying he had a chiropractor who was an expert at finding permanently disabling injuries and said, in red ink, "YOU MIGHT NEVER HAVE TO WORK AGAIN". He was soliciting my business. Had I sued, would you consider that frivolous or just good business?

No one can determine if a suit is frivolous except a court. I would expect that you would have no medical bills and no lost time from work, ergo the case wouldn't even make it to a lawsuit, because the attorney, no matter how questionable his ethics, wouldn't take your case. However, I don't really think this happened to you, given legal ethics prohibit such solicitation.

I was sued in federal court because I did not hire a specific woman for a job. She sued for sexual discrimination and, of course, had a lawyer. The lawyers where I worked wanted to settle because lawyers are always sympathetic to frivolous lawsuits.

LOL... Says who? I certainly am not. I'm known in my area of practice as something of a litigator, and certainly no friend to BS.

When you make ignorant generalizations like that, it just shows your bias.

I refused to settle and we went to court and the federal judge did feel the fact that I had hired a woman for the job made the plaintiffs argument silly.

So.... the system worked. What's your gripe?

It's my opinion that all the lawyers involved, including the judges, are sympathetic to frivolous lawsuits.

Which is, of course, a ridiculous opinion. But you're entitled to it.

An extremely fat man rented a room in my father's motel. Sometime later, Dad heard him screaming and investigated. The fat man was on the floor and couldn't get up. Dad couldn't get him up. Dad and Mom couldn't get him up. Finally, with two other men, they got the fat S.O.B. up so he could race to his lawyer to sue because someone should have gotten his fat ass up faster. My dad didn't lose, of course, but it cost him thousands to defend himself from the legalized extortion.

I highlighted the pertinent part.

Once again, the system worked. If your gripe is that your dad had to spend money in legal fees, (1) that's between him and his attorney, (2) he should have had insurance to cover things like that [the most common way I come into a claim is when the liability insurer for a company calls my firm], and (3) the price of living in a free society is that people will be free to make unsustainable claims. Better to err on that side than on the side of having a society where parties are free to trample on other people with no recourse.

A lawyer and a man in a wheelchair formed a partnership. The man in the wheelchair goes around with a tape measure and camera and finds alleged violations of ADA. The lawyer promptly files and intent to sue without any warning to the business and just as promply accepts a setlement which he shares with the guy in the wheelchair. To the best of my knowledge, if someone actually decides to fight he drops his complaint. Legalized extortion.

Well, first, you've told me this before, and I question it's truthfulness.

Second, if the business has not violated ADA, the person has no case and there's no grounds for any claim. It's not extortion, it's enforcement. If you don't like the fact that the ADA allows for aggreived individuals to enforce the Act, blame Congress. They wrote it.

So, you wouldn't set foot on an unsafe deck but if someone does, he has a valid lawsuit?

If the owner of the deck had a duty to ensure its safety to the person who was injured, yes.

Again, how is a person who visits a place supposed to ensure the safety of the surfaces they are walking on? Bring an engineer around with them?

It's a mess but every yong lawyer wants his shot at the brass ring with bogus lawsuits like John Edwars had and parlayed into $29 million.

Again, your bias is obvious. Every young lawyer? Hardly.

Originally Posted by AshenLady

come on

bootle rocket stupid

everything else is commentary

i think this case has no merit

stop making a federal case over a guy who was a jackass and an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)

the deck - heck the deck was the least of this guys' problems, I'd say.

One more person who does not understand the case. Or didn't read the article. Ignorance breeds contempt.

So, does anyone else want to explain what they think is happening here?

I mean, everyone has gotten wrong who is suing who and what this claim is about, so are we ready for me to explain it, or do any of the previous posters have any additional e-feet they can stick into their e-mouths?

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

Except that the average person cannot be expected to know when a deck is dangerous. That's why the law places the duty on the owner of the deck to ensure it's safety through proper maintenance and inspection.

Not by an average person. Not even by an expert making only a cursory review, in some cases.

You seem to have a perverse idea of the duty of care we owe to one another whereby you suggest that every person is absolutely responsible for their own safety in every situation, even those out of their control, and must take ridiculous measures to prevent being hurt.

Let's say you walk onto my deck. It has a large, beefy-looking railing. You rest your hand on the railing and it gives way, causing you to fall 10 feet and crack your skull. Later, it turns out that my beefy-looking railing was only sitting on top of the deck, and was not secured to the base or surface by anything. In today's world of hidden screws and fasteners, you're saying that you would take responsibility for not knowing my railing was improper, and you wouldn't ask me to pay any of your bills or anything?

In the first place, I don't trust you, whoever you are. In your example, I would when walking to the edge, test the railing for resistance. It's not a deliberate intent on my part, but instinct.

It's also why I have been driving a car for over 50 years and have never created an accident other than having been rear ended, twice, once when stationary, which can hardly be claimed as my error since the police had no problem on site. I anticipate.

O.K., I'm sure you might claim that it's impossible for me to not have any problems in my life, but I have avoided them up to this point.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

...
Why is this case a statement on the Bar?

Someone was injured. They were injured by the stupidity and negligence of someone else. The fact that the negligent act was silly or might be gruesome to describe is not a reflection on anyone except the idiot who stuck the firework up his ass.
...
What is the statement about the American Bar? What is the statement about the culture? Be specific. Because with empty non-answers like you just gave, I'm beginning to think you don't even know who is suing who over what in this case.

The objective behind the lawsuit is to reach the liability coverage of the fraternity. That is all this is about.

In a better era the plaintiff would have been too ashamed to bring this action. And in a better era lawyers had better things to do than bringing suits over bullshxt.

Someone was injured? So what?

The plaintiff was a drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity. He put himself into a position in which his shameful participation in this activity was a contributing cause of his own injury. Does the fraternity have some comparative liability under today's standards? Probably. This is all about the reaching a deep pocket.

One fact revealed by this nonsense is the fact that there are too many lawyers in America with too much time on their hands. The explosion in the number of attorneys in this country has had profound consequences.

It has led to a concomitant explosion in worthless litigation. Fear of litigation has had a chilling effect on American industrial and commercial activity and imposed an anti-competitive burden on America from an economic standpoint.

Some pharmaceuticals aren't developed and used in America because the risk of litigation is too great. Similarly, many IPOS have shifted to London from New York because the risk of litigation in the US is too great. Low income housing isn't developed because it might interfere with the migratory habits of some subspecies of cockroach.

From the cultural standpoint the influence of too many lawyers has affected the behavior of teachers, social organizations, and many others. Land owners along the border in Arizona can't defend their properties from illegal aliens intent on moving north.

The ethics of lawyers two generations ago were different than what I see today. In too many instances today law has become a hustle and a shakedown. It was formerly a profession.

The tort bar, of which you are a member, has shaped the political direction of the country as well. American Trial Lawyers are one of the fat cat contributors who have pursued their special interests as part of the left wing coalition that runs this country.

Leftist politicians enact new laws, creating new rights, and the tort bar and trial lawyers bring class action lawsuits in which they are the only winners. And then the tort and trial lawyers make huge political campaign contributions to those same leftist politicians.

A bunch of lawyers running a tort mill churning the waters for paydays is a far cry from the silk stocking lawyers of a prior era. Such mills are like poultry processing plants.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

Just as I suspected, the people calling this lawsuit stupid and frivolous have absolutely no idea who is suing whom and for what in this case.

Once again showing that lawyer haters are rooted in ignorance.

I don't hate lawyers. I like lawyers.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

The objective behind the lawsuit is to reach the liability coverage of the fraternity. That is all this is about.

In a better era the plaintiff would have been too ashamed to bring this action. And in a better era lawyers had better things to do than bringing suits over bullshxt.

Someone was injured? So what?

The plaintiff was a drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity. He put himself into a position in which his shameful participation in this activity was a contributing cause of his own injury. Does the fraternity have some comparative liability under today's standards? Probably. This is all about the reaching a deep pocket.

Upon what evidence did you determine the plaintiff was a "drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity"?

I'll deal with the rest of your lunacy after you answer that question, promise.

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

Upon what evidence did you determine the plaintiff was a "drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity"?

I'll deal with the rest of your lunacy after you answer that question, promise.

This isn't a court room and I am not under cross-examination. If you wish to have an exchange with me, then do so, but do not expect me to jump through hoops for you.

Your choice of the word "lunacy" is most unfortunate. Insults preclude discourse.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

You know the quality of the members of the Bar is going down the tubes when a suit like this is filed:

Lawsuit: Defendant Breached a Duty Not to Shoot Bottle Rockets Out of His Anus

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/0...le-rocket.html

So some moron did something stupid, someone got hurt and they are now suing? I think I have that right, from what I can understand of the source. Lawsuit sounds fair to me.