Lawyers and Common Sense

[Kwing]

I'm getting so pissed off about the legal system and how lawyers can argue the most obscene shit and still get away with it. The system has become too big to use common sense, because nothing is 'obvious' in a system that has to support such huge amounts of people. Still, there should be some way to stop this madness.

Example 1: My grandfather was speeding at 60 mph down a wet gravel road. He lost control, hit a tree, and died. My grandmother wants to sue the city for improper maintenance of the road. What the fuck? The only thing the city could have possibly done is pave the road, but considering how many people drive down gravel roads every day, the entire lawsuit is ludicrous.

Example 2: Monsanto has sued companies for labeling their products "non-GMO" because it implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified organisms. Regardless of whether there is or not, it should always be the consumer's choice what they're buying! That's why all food needs to have ingredients written on the labels; people should have a right to know what they're eating. Not only that, but filing a lawsuit because you want something removed from labels is also a matter of freedom of speech.

Example 3: The guy who spilled hot coffee on his lap and sued McDonalds... No, he didn't sue the company that manufactured the Styrofoam cup, but even if he did, how can he sue someone else for something that was so OBVIOUSLY his fault?

I understand that not every issue is so cut and dry. Abortion, for instance. In reality, abortion is the same issue as black rights, women's rights, gay rights, mentally handicapped rights, animal rights, etc. in that pro-life people are standing up for the rights of an unborn fetus. The question of whether the individual in question is 'human enough' to be entitled to rights is a matter of debate, because what defines a human being is a very complex topic. I have my own opinions on the matter, but I would never try to legislate something that shaky. However, when a matter can be put to rest by pure logic, such as the three examples above, I see no reason why hiring a lawyer to talk in circles should be able to turn up into down. It pisses me the fuck off and there has to be a better way.

[SweetenBoy]

My pet peeve with the legal system is when people are not arguing over a dispute over what they believe is right or wrong, but are arguing just to win the case and reap the rewards. Like in your examples above, common sense and even morality is thrown out the window, just to "win" the case.

I disagree with your statement that abortion is the same as black rights, gay rights etc. Some are not cut and dry, like you said, but others are blatantly obvious. For example, I'm pretty sure everyone reading my post will agree with me that black people should have the same rights as everyone else. However, I'm pretty sure that not everyone reading my post will agree with my view on abortion, which I believe is murder.

When you fight over some "cut and dry" aspect, like the examples you mentioned, that is when I get pissed with the legal system. It's like arguing against black rights, the truth is easy to see (excuse my bluntness), but the desire to win and "over-power" disregards morality and common sense from the equation.

[SweetenBoy]

Sorry, I should have added the reference to my last paragraph, "To Kill a Mockingbird."

[Solisio]

1. Yes, people can sue for any ridiculous reason. It doesn't mean it will be taken seriously in a court of law.

2. Monsanto is a large corporation, and a lot of politicians are involved (kind of powerful)

3. First of all, it was an old woman. Secondly, she suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS! IN HER PUSS! The lawsuit may sound stupid, but if a company fills a flimsy cup full of lava and it falls on your junk, you'd want compensation, too, bud.

[morefngdbs]

At 11/2/11 02:27 AM, Solisio wrote: 1. Yes, people can sue for any ridiculous reason.

;;;
I remember a few years back, an American stage hand was here with an Aerican band.
He slipped and fell coming into the Metro Centre in Halifax on an icy sidewalk.( Yeah ,I know who would have thought that ice would be on the ground in Canada)
He tried to sue the metro centre for not properly cleaning & salting their sidewalk.

THe suit got nowhere, no lawyer in Canada would take the case.
You cannot sue someone, if you get hurt, for icy slippery conditions in this country.
BUt all the roadies on that show were asking us who do you call, to sue for this.
We were trying very hard not to laugh at them...because buddy was hurt, & that's not a laughing matter...but the idea they all believed they could sue ,sure was !

[Camarohusky]

You can sue for anything. And you can be laughed out of a courtroom for numerous things by a judge before you even start.

Sure, there are some idiots who try to game the system, and even worse a smaller few who succeed. However, the system isn't fundamentally flawed. There are numerous ways for courts to blow off bullshit claims. There's dismissal, Summary judgement, directed verdict, and JNOV. All of these are meant for the sole purpose of getting rid of cases that don't have merit.

With as much as summary judgement is used and granted, a huge (I mean HUGE) number of cases die before they really start.

Also, some of the cases you think are stupid deal with extremely valid social and procedural issues.

Mnay of these deal with getting a message accross. Some of these deal with business protection. Others with a problem that someone sees. Many of these cases seem stupid, but they aren't necessarily meritless.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/2/11 12:57 AM, Kwing wrote: Example 2: Monsanto has sued companies for labeling their products "non-GMO" because it implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified organisms. Regardless of whether there is or not, it should always be the consumer's choice what they're buying!

lol, slander is not a consumer-choice issue.

[All-American-Badass]

At 11/2/11 01:25 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/2/11 12:57 AM, Kwing wrote: Example 2: Monsanto has sued companies for labeling their products "non-GMO" because it implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified organisms. Regardless of whether there is or not, it should always be the consumer's choice what they're buying!

lol, slander is not a consumer-choice issue.

I was gonna make this point even though it's claim for slander is kind of a longshot.

[Kwing]

At 11/2/11 02:07 AM, SweetenBoy wrote: Sorry, I should have added the reference to my last paragraph, "To Kill a Mockingbird."

To Kill a Mockingbird was propaganda. That isn't to say I disagreed with its message, but I hated the story itself.

As per your first post, I understand abortion isn't the exact same as black rights, but if you think back fifty years, the entire context of black rights was much different... I'm not sure where the abortion issue is going to be in 50 years, but I think by that time, most people will think of it as being a cut and dry issue the way we think of black rights today.

At 11/2/11 02:27 AM, Solisio wrote: 1. Yes, people can sue for any ridiculous reason. It doesn't mean it will be taken seriously in a court of law.

But all too often it is.

2. Monsanto is a large corporation, and a lot of politicians are involved (kind of powerful)

Lol. 'Kind of'.

3. First of all, it was an old woman. Secondly, she suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS! IN HER PUSS! The lawsuit may sound stupid, but if a company fills a flimsy cup full of lava and it falls on your junk, you'd want compensation, too, bud.

Fine, but in that case, it was the company manufacturing the poorly-made cup that is to blame.

At 11/2/11 11:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You can sue for anything. And you can be laughed out of a courtroom for numerous things by a judge before you even start.

I haven't read up on the facts, but regardless of the truth, the fact that people are so goddamn paranoid of lawsuits this day in age is a serious problem on its own. Perhaps this information needs to spread more, because when I was in school, I had teachers and counselors following me around trying to figure out when I would take a gun to school and kill everybody.

When people try to be proactive about a problem that is obscenely rare in its statistics, both the improbability of me going to school with a gun and the higher improbability of the school being held responsible for it should have been taken into account, but neither were.

At 11/2/11 01:32 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I was gonna make this point even though it's claim for slander is kind of a longshot.

I understand that's the claim. When you sue, you do have to file an official reason.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/2/11 04:38 PM, Kwing wrote: I haven't read up on the facts, but regardless of the truth...

lol sounds like the intro to a Herman Cain response.

Colbert had a former lawyer on the other week; her documentary was titled 'Hot Coffee: The Myth of the Frivolous Lawsuit.'

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episod es/tue-october-25-2011-susan-saladoff
(around the 15 minute mark)