Spyderco Forums

I believe individuals should be responsible for their actions and not society as a whole and not companies who are truly innocent. Yes, there have been abuses done by companies and corporations. But, how can all frivolous and irresponsible lawsuits be ended and nullified and not even allowed to continue at all? Or is the deeper problem that the lawyers of the world enjoy the existence of such lawsuits because it is an income generator for them? Some examples are in order:

1 A person buys a hot drink from a fast food or restaurant chain and spills it on themselves; they sue and are awarded money for damages.

2 A no good low life thief or burglar breaks into a store and the store owner defends and protects himself and his property, and the thief is damaged and sues for damages, and wins. Or, the store owner faces criminal offenses for defending himself and his property.

3 A bystander is in a restaurant or public place and a violent attacker attempts to steal or attack people, and the bystander does the morally right thing and uses physical force to stop the assailant, either killing them or injuring them. They or their family (if the attacker died) sues the bystander for "pain and suffering and lost wages" or something, or, the bystander faces criminal charges, for having done the morally right thing and protecting human lives.

While there were no "good old days" at least in the Pre Modern times you could count on being able to protect yourself with the confidence that the legal system would back you up. The only exception is if the attacker was part of the local "good old boys" or something similar.


4 A man buys a knife from a knife maker and he abuses or mis uses the knife in a way it was NOT to be used for, he damages himself and then turns around and sues the knife maker/knife company.

How can these nonsense types of law suits and charges be prevented from happening?

For example, demoncase, am I correct in saying that in general, in 1800s England and 1800s USA America, if a store owner used physical force to protect their store from a violent armed attacker or a thief and they either killed the thief or injured the thief, almost every single judge and magistrate that existed at the time (say Victorian times, you know) would side with the store owner and against the criminal and if anything, the surviving criminal would then face charges rightfully so, for attempting to break in and steal, right?

There is no one catch-all solution for all eventualities hence the so-called need for courts and judiciary, but in the case of western democracy it is usually the case of enough of an outcry (by democratic means) being needed on the behalf of the people in order to force a turnaround.

But justice can never really be justice until such incidents simply stop happening i.e. society treats the cause rather than the symptoms.

Short of coming up with a surefire way to exclude liberals from juries and the judiciary, no.

I have the sense that (here) the judiciary are becoming more sensible, and that the more absurd cases are increasingly rare, but the latter make such good stories that they are perpetuated - like the new owner who sued the trailer / motorhome manufacturer because when he turned on the cruise-control and left the cab to make a drink in the kitchen area, the vehicle crashed! Who knows if that was true, and who cares!

Otherwise, there is always the balance between justice, deterring over-zealous vigilantism, and allowing universal access to the justice system, so not just the wealthy can afford it.

But let's play "what if"... in each case the headlines could be the same.

1. What if he was given the boiling hot drink in a defective cup? He pulls it out of the card cup holder ... whoosh, off to A&E / ER
2. A hungry patient who has wandered off from a psychiatric or dementia ward gets beaten senseless with a bat, or shot, when found rummaging through a drunk householders garage freezer.
3. A bystander in a mutually violent domestic dispute pulls out a gun and shoots the one he likes least ... his ex.
4. Ridiculous! The man should be gaoled/jailed for abusing his knife!

Can society end them? Society made them. I just heard a story this morning about a lady who tripped over a crack in a sidewalk and busted her fake boob implant and sued the city. While we still have lawyers, there will always be frivolous lawsuits.

Having a "loser pays all of both parties legal fees" clause attached to each lawsuit would go a long way towards slowing down this crap. Make it binding and have the ability to attach wages or property to pay the bill.

Define "Frivolous". Give me an example of "companies who are truly innocent". The McDonnald's Coffee example doesn't put the argument on solid ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

I don't think "society" is being held responsible for anything but maybe that would help. Society is just individuals living in a community and if individuals took responsibility for their mistakes lawyers wouldn't have to get involved but that isn't the case. Unfortunately in most cases it's the person or legal "corporate person" with the most money who wins or who has the lobbying power to change the laws so they don't need to face any repercussions.

I'm sure there are "frivolous" cases where the plaintiff is trying to manipulate the system but I would bet there are far more examples of a legitimate claim being made that goes without restitution.

woodpecker, a good example is someone who buys a folding knife that is meant to cut open the hides of animals and they use it to say cut some rubber or plastic in a craft project, and because the blade was made to cut into animal flesh and similiar structures, and not the heavy gauge plastic in their art project, they cut themselves or damage themselves, and turn around and sue the knife company for a "faulty product" when in reality it was their irresponsible use of that knife that caused them to cut too hard and cut themselves. Don't you agree in a case like that the knife company should be automatically protected and not have to even spend a day in court or a cent of money on a lawyer because clearly that was a case of individual abuse of the product as opposed to a badly made product?

And as another example: Say you own a building and do your best to keep the front walk maintained well and make sure there are no pits or major damage in the side walk. Along comes some guy doing stupid tricks on a bike or skateboard (no insult against bicycle riders or skaters) and he falls and gets hurt. Don't you agree that he has no right to sue you the building owner, because you were not at fault, he was at fault for being irresponsible with his bike. That sort of thing is what I mean.

And a third case: A burglar breaks into a store and the store owner beats the crap out of him in self protection of himself and his goods, the guy gets some broken bones, and while he is arrested for burglary/breaking and entering, he turns around and sues the store owner for damages against his person. Don't you agree that such cases are clearly defined as abuse of the legal system and should automatically be banned and thrown out from being pursued?

SEF,

I understand your frustration with frivolous lawsuits. However, the Federal legal system already has within its rules of civil procedure, FRCP Rule 11, which provides for sanctions against an attorney, law firm, or party for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

You can read it here if you so wish: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11#

Moreover, most states have their own version of Rule 11 in their respective state rules of civil procedure for legal actions asserted in state courts.

Bottom line, the judicial system itself (i.e., judges) has little patience for frivolous cases. Whether you realize it or not, most judges are "lazy" and will not allow the parties to adjudicate silly, meritless suits. (Remember, most judges are salaried employees and do not get paid by the hour or by the number of cases that are tried before them.) See also, "judicial economy". https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judicial-economy/

Cheers,

H2

Thank you for that and for the feedback. Is this true or false? I heard there are good Samaritan laws that protect someone who will help or try to help save the life of an injured person and then get sued by the person or their family for negligence, even though the person was trying to help?

SpyderEdgeForever wrote:Thank you for that and for the feedback. Is this true or false? I heard there are good Samaritan laws that protect someone who will help or try to help save the life of an injured person and then get sued by the person or their family for negligence, even though the person was trying to help?

I did a first response course. I was told as long as you don't try anything daft (like attempting a tracheotomy with zero medical knowledge or skill) then you're in the clear.

Evil D wrote:Can society end them? Society made them. I just heard a story this morning about a lady who tripped over a crack in a sidewalk and busted her fake boob implant and sued the city. While we still have lawyers, there will always be frivolous lawsuits.

I pay a lot of tax to the local Council so I can live in a safe environment. They have a duty to inpect and maintain the highway, not sit around drinking tea. Was the crack 10mm or 50mm?

And what has the implant to do with it? Injury is injury, surely. If it had been a shattered dental implant or wrist I doubt it whether it would have been news at all, so I wonder what was the story-teller really trying to say?

ChrisinHove wrote:

Evil D wrote:Can society end them? Society made them. I just heard a story this morning about a lady who tripped over a crack in a sidewalk and busted her fake boob implant and sued the city. While we still have lawyers, there will always be frivolous lawsuits.

I pay a lot of tax to the local Council so I can live in a safe environment. They have a duty to inpect and maintain the highway, not sit around drinking tea. Was the crack 10mm or 50mm?

And what has the implant to do with it? Injury is injury, surely. If it had been a shattered dental implant or wrist I doubt it whether it would have been news at all, so I wonder what was the story-teller really trying to say?

I suppose the implant was the comic relief of the story. I would never dream of suing a city because I tripped and fell. Who's controlling my legs? If I'm clumsy and I trip over a curb can I sue the city? People just can't live with any amount of accountability these days, it's all about who you can blame and how much you can cash in for.

Evil D wrote:

ChrisinHove wrote:

Evil D wrote:Can society end them? Society made them. I just heard a story this morning about a lady who tripped over a crack in a sidewalk and busted her fake boob implant and sued the city. While we still have lawyers, there will always be frivolous lawsuits.

I pay a lot of tax to the local Council so I can live in a safe environment. They have a duty to inpect and maintain the highway, not sit around drinking tea. Was the crack 10mm or 50mm?

And what has the implant to do with it? Injury is injury, surely. If it had been a shattered dental implant or wrist I doubt it whether it would have been news at all, so I wonder what was the story-teller really trying to say?

I suppose the implant was the comic relief of the story. I would never dream of suing a city because I tripped and fell. Who's controlling my legs? If I'm clumsy and I trip over a curb can I sue the city? People just can't live with any amount of accountability these days, it's all about who you can blame and how much you can cash in for.

I don't agree that you shouldn't hold ineffectual public bodies to account if they are demonstrably reckless with people's safety.

Of course, there is a line to be drawn, but someone needs to determine where that line is - and that someone is often the independent judiciary. Big corporate bodies are rarely going to put their hands up and say "My bad - here's your medical costs" as a matter of their own volition.

You wouldn't sue if you tripped, but what about a surface water roadway puddle on a highway that turns out to be 6" deep, trashes your alloy rim, knocks your tracking out, veers you across the neighbouring lane... ?

(I accept humour doesn't travel well, btw.)