 |
Why is it that Law Suits in the USA are always for outrageous amounts (i.e, millions of dollars) where as here in Canada, lawsuits are usually never more than 1 million?
When I was in PA, on the news there was this guy suing a Drug Company for like 10 million dollars. Such a thing never occurs here in Canada. Why is that?
Thanks.
IN the US law suits, most attorney have to get their cut also. The very large amounts are for possibly settling the suit out of court. Very sedom to these suit go to court, or that the plaintiff;s win the suits. This is from want I have seen in the courts. It is call greed!
Hello Captain:
It's for negotiation or shock purposes. It really doesn't matter what he's suing for, the jury will give him only what the case is worth, or the case will settle based on other economic factors, the amount of the suit NOT being one of them.
OR, in the alternative, I have no idea what I'm talking about. After all, I AM a convicted felon.
excon
You should come to Europe you make our law suites look like peanuts !
One of the funny things I re-call from spending time in NY :) was a guy that brought a Camper van with cruse control, well cutting along story short he set the control late night on the highway, jumped in the back and then crashed, well this dude took a lawsuit for $15mill saying that it was not clear in the books with the car that he had too sit behind the wheel all the time the car was in motion.. What really shocked me was that he WON ?
Thanks all for responding.
That seems so silly though. I mean, shock purposes aside, shouldn't people only go in with at least a reasonable amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Wal-Mart sold a CD that contained the word f**k. So they were sued for $74,500 http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/nationa...ord041214.html which seems so silly to me. How hearing the word f**k in a song entitles you to that much, I will never know. This person should get a re fund, and perhaps the cost of gas or something. Nothing more.
And Excon, serious, 6 people jumped into your car?
Wow, that is totally insane. It makes one wonder where all the common sense is going these days?Quote:
Originally Posted by nwsflash
Greed sucks. When it’s a big corporation you are suing, they might be able to. But what happens when you sue the average person. The average person can’t afford to pay outrageous lawsuits.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.yet
Actually, while the layperson may think that the high numbers are for "shock and greed", that is absolutely wrong in 99% of the cases. A few points about what has been written:
1. The numbers are not high for "settlement purposes". Settlements for lawsuits are handled between sophisticated negotiators who do this kind of thing every single day. No one on the defense side(insurance adjuster or attorney) is going to be scared or intimidated when you sue for 10 million dollars for a broken toe. Everyone on both sides knows exactly what the injury is worth, and a reasonably accurate range of what a jury would award if it went to trial and the defendant was found liable. While your average Joe Askmeuser may be blown away by a 10 million dollar demand, a defense attorney will shrug it off.
2. There is a growing bias in this country against people who bring lawsuits. Ever since the whole McDonald's coffee thing, it is harder and harder to get a jury to take a claim seriously. Having a large claim for relief in the complaint (which is what you mean when you say "suing for") can actually be detrimental to a plaintiff's case because it turns the jury off. A common defense tactic is to go into their opening statement and hold up a copy of the complaint and say something like "can you believe the plaintiff is asking for TEN MILLION DOLLARS for a __insert minor injury here__".
3. They recently changed the law in New York so that your complaint does not have to set forth a dollar amount demanded. You only need to state:
"wherefore, the plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts the would otherwise have jurisdiction"
(basically you are telling the court that your injuries are significant enough to be in Supreme Court rather than civil (local)court. Being in Supreme court is an advantage for many reasons.
Now, I will tell you the ACTUAL reason that demands are so high in 99% of the cases. The lawyers are covering their own butts and erring on the side of caution.
In the great majority of civil lawsuits, an action is started (complaint filed) as soon as possible, and at a point where the injuries to the plaintiff may not yet be known. This is largely due to a backed up court system and the plaintiff's attorney knowing that you will not go to trial for at least a year from starting the lawsuit.
Here is an example:
Joe gets in a car accident with another car and breaks his leg. He consults an attorney the next day who determines that the other driver was liable. One week later, after obtaining the defendant driver's insurance information, Joe's attorney files a complaint. (with a large demand)
At this point, Joe's attorney knows that Joe has significant injuries, but has no idea of the exact value. For example, if Joe had a closed reduction and was casted, then made a full recovery, the case might be worth $50-75K, depending on the county you are in. BUT, if Joe needed open reduction with internal fixation(surgery with a plate and screws inserted) followed by 3-months of physical therapy and missed work at a high paying job, the case could be worth over $300K.
Now at the point where the complaint is filed, we are in no position to know what Joe's situation will be, but we know that we want to get the suit moving ASAP, so we err on the side of caution, and demand a number that will ABSOLUTELY be higher then our best-case scenario.
I hope this answers your question. As you can see from the answers in the thread, the perception of the American public, and that of the actual attornies handling the cases are often at opposite ends of the spectrum.
"excon agrees: No, you're not. But, if I needed a lawyer, I'd hire you."
Well hopefully, given my field of practice, you will never need me.
Thank you very much sideoutshu for clearing that up for me. This gives me new insight into this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sideoutshu
Thank you.
Reopen
Obviously because the Canadian justice system has more common sense than its American counterpart.
In Canada,
I remember when I took a law course in school. I remember reading a story, actual fact. This guy broke into a house and came out with a TV. Ended up tripping and falling on his way out of the house. The robber actually sued the owner of the house, and won. How the hell does that happen?
Joe
Joe,
You remember the story correctly.
Back in the day, Ontario courts created a lot of case law regarding duty of care to guest, trespassers, etc. There were so many different types of situations in which it all got so confusing and messy.
Therefore, the Ontario government stepped in and passed a law. This law replaced all the messy common law and 8 different types of duty of care into just 2.
1) A duty of care to guests
2) A very limited duty of care to trespassers
Hey Everyone.
I asked Rick to re-open this post because I wish to add something.
My law professor was talking to the class about some of the differences between the Canadians and US systems.
One of the points he made was how here in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has capped pain and suffering to about $350,000 whereas in the US, there is no cap.
He then when into a little political speech about how most Canadians don't seem to know this and/or care about it enough to get the MP's in Ottawa to pass legislation to change this.
Then he outlined some pros and cons of the cap.
Therefore, that is one big reason out law suits are lower on average. Since you can't sue for millions in pain and suffering.
Hello Captain:
Do you want it changed? Since Canada is going to take care of an injured person, medically at least, there doesn't seem to be any reason to sue for lots of money - except maybe to punish the wrongdoer, and that ain't bad.
Here, in the US, where you're on your own, medically speaking, and two aspirins in the hospital costs about $150, someone who needs long term care SHOULD get millions, because it's going to cost him MORE than that down the road.
And, like Canada, the citizens don't know about this or care. Some of them line up behind the insurance companies and ask for caps in the awards. I don't know why. They believe the propaganda, I assume. And, I'm guilty of spreading some of that propaganda myself - the coffee in the lap story is a good example.
Yes, this one woman hit the jackpot. It's an anomaly. MOST injured people don't come up smelling like roses.
I'm a believer in the jury system. IF independent jurors think some brain damaged kid should get zillions, who am I to disagree with them? Somebody hurt that kid pretty bad, and why shouldn't they pay for it? The government sure ain't going to.
excon
The problem here is the companies DON'T pay for it. If a company is sued for large amounts, then they just raise prices or they go under. Which puts people out of work and increases the tax burden.
Hello Scott:
What's worse for society - a company that hurts people? Or some unemployed people from a company that was forced to shut down because it hurt people?
But, I agree with your other statement. The companies DON'T pay for it - the taxpayer eventually does. So, caps on awards are cool, as long as they're accompanied with universal health care. Canada has the right idea.
excon
Well, see that depends on whether the hurt was intentional or not. Did McDonald's intentionaly intend on hurting that woman? One of the posts here talked about a guy who sued and won because he thought cruise control meant he could get up from the wheel. Reminded me of the guy who wrapped his Corvette around a tree going too fast, then sued GM saying if you make a car like that it should be safe at any speed.
Hello again, Scott:
Intentional or not?? Nahhh. Hurt is hurt. If some company hurt me, I want them to pay. If it was intentional they should pay more. That's the way it was set up.
Besides, those cases you point to make good press, but as I said earlier, they're anomalies. You can't make good policy based on very rare events - at least I wouldn't.
excon
Very good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think first it should be determined if the wrong was intentional or not.
If I drop a piano from balcony and hit you. Well, I wasn't aiming at you, so I agree with the cap. But if I knew you were down there, then I don't believe I should be given a cap.
Although if I dropped a piano from my balcony I would also be facing criminal charges.
However, in the case of a corporation.
I believe the same rules should be applied, but perhaps a bit more loosely.
Some companies would rather see people get hurt than order a resale.
What was it, the 1970 Ford? Some of the cars had a tendency to catch fire and blow up if they got into an accident.
Ford decided to take the chance and the law suits rather than recall all of their cars.
In that case, recklessness and a lack of care for human life, I don't believe there should be a cap.
Hello again, Captain:
Hnmmm. I seemed to have forgotten punitive damages. I think I lumped them into pain and suffering, and I clearly, shouldn't have. There's a big distinction. My bad.
Jury awards can encompass three components: Medical expenses, pain and suffering, AND punitive damages.
Certainly ALL the medical bills, including those in the future, should be taken care of. In Canada, as long as the government is going to handle ALL the long term medical needs of the plaintiff, a cap on medical bills makes sense. Here in the US, it doesn't.
Being compensated for pain and suffering isn't geared toward putting money in someone's pocket (although that's what it does). It's really to pay them back for being hurt; to make them whole, so to speak, or as whole as can be. A cap on that, even in Canada, doesn't make sense. How much is a ruined life worth? A jury of my peers might think it's worth more than what some politician thinks.
Then we get to punitive damages. That's different. This is where intent IS an issue. It's also when the plaintiff hits the jackpot because the jury wants to punish the defendant, ala the Ford case you mentioned. A cap on that doesn't make sense either, for the same reasons I mentioned above. Wealthy corporations need to be punished proportionately to the not so wealthy ones. It should hurt them both equally.
What it shouldn't do, is benefit the plaintiff. What I DO agree with is that the PLAINTIFF should not be rewarded for the bad behavior of the defendant. Maybe punitive damages should be put into a fund for victims or something like that. That would end the jackpot mode of law suits (not good), and continue the punishment mode (very good).
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:40 PM. |