Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:24:51 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >David wrote:
> >> James Annan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Werehatrack wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
> >>>> brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
> >>> safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
> >>> when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have quite
> >>> clearly expressed the contrary view.
> >>>
> >>> They will also not know that one case was recently settled in favour
> >>> of the rider.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>
> >>
> >> Out of court settlements almost always include a statement that the
> >> plantiff is not admitting liability. It is often less costly to pay a
> >> small settlement than it is to defend the claim, particularly if the
> >> jurisdiction is known to be plaintiff-favorable.
> >
> >That first plantiff should be defendant.
>
> True, as is the statement so amended.
>
> And in fact, in most such cases, getting an out-of-court settlement
> also has two other beneficial results for the defendant; it ends the
> case completely without any opening for it to continue through some
> sort of appeal, and it precludes the possibility that the case can be
> used as a precedent. Given the combination of cost of defense, the
> possibility that the suit might initially be lost (and thereby often
> bring on a spate of me-too suits), the hazard that the defense expense
> might dwarf the actual settlement if an appeal is (or must be) filed,
> and the hazard that the finding might be cited in other cases as a
> precedent, there's lots of reason to shut down the process by making
> an offer to settle even when the case isn't necessarily all that
> strong for the plaintiff.
The fact is that most cases settle -- except med mal, where the
consequences of settlement are significant (doctor gets reported to
national registry, premiums go through the roof), and the chances of
winning generally are high. Notwithstanding what you read in the news,
it is the rare case when a plaintiff wins a med-mal case. Products
cases -- even big ones -- usually settle unless there is an
exceptionally low chance of liability or the probable award is way
lower than plaintiff's demand. Also, some companies just try
everything, and some companies settle everything. Toro -- the lawmower
company -- puts everything into mediation. Make a claim, go to
mediation.
> In some states, the impetus to settle is being reduced by
> defendant-friendly changes to statute, often made under the guise of
> "ending lawsuit abuse". Sometimes, what's billed as an abuse-control
> measure turns out to be a PLI-defense attorney's nightmare...because
> the defense lawyers don't get paid the big bucks for doing the
> slam-dunk early dismissal filings, they only make the big bucks when
> the case goes on long enough to rack up some worthwhile billable
> hours.
You have been reading too many Grisham novels. Every time some tort
reform package is put together, it usually gets smushed like a bug. All
I see are statutes creating new claims for relief and not ending them,
particularly in the employment field.
> Look for subtle and stealthy moves by PLI defense attorneys, and more
> open ones by plaintiff lawyers, to get plaintiff-friendly changes made
> if their billable hours drop too low. They both have a vested
> interest in keeping the process alive.
There is very, very little legislation proposed by defense lawyers, and
most of that is "law improvement" legislation, e.g., clarificaiton of a
poorly drafted statute or process-related changes like amending the
rules of civil proceedure. Most all of that is done on a bi-partisan
basis. Most of the defense-friendly tort reform legislation is proposed
by industry or professional organizations including the AMA and the
Chamber of Commerce. On the other hand, ATLA and some of the
plaintiff's attorneys groups do propose or oppose legislation more
vigorously -- which generally means a welter of Erin Brockovich
commercials until the legislation passes or fails. -- Jay Beattie.
.
