[orangeninja]

Yes, I know the bill protecting them was shot down today. Thats okay. Why? Because of the massive lobby movement against these types of lawsuits. Not just by gun people either, but also insurance companies, vehicle manufacturers, hospitals, charitable organizations, airliners, etc.

For instance. If you were driving in a vehicle and another vehicle struck you and it was a GM so you turn and sue GM for that driver's negligence, just imagine the financial ramifications the nation would suffer economically if GM actually LOST that suit. It would be struck down in appeals. Now take the same senario and make the driver an alcoholic and the company being sued a dealer. The man, while driving drunk, hits you. You sue the dealer for failing to recognize an alcoholic. So far no lawsuit has held up like this, the reason why is the slippery slope of court precedent. Once vicarious liability of dealer or manufacturer has been established, there will be no end to accountability. Everyone who ever touched the product may be sued. This would be economic disaster and the federal courts know it.

Now if we could just negate lawyer fees.:rolleyes:

[Hedger]

A few truths about lawyers:

1. People tend to hate all lawyers except their own.

2. People tend to get the lawyer they deserve.

:neener:

[goalie]

We need to start making the losing side pay for all the costs of the lawsuit. If the lawyer takes it on a contingency basis, then the lawyer pays. Make it ridiculously expensive to file these junk lawsuits and they will stop. As the situation currently sits, every half-assed trial lawyer out there is shooting for the stars, hoping that they will just win that one case that makes them multi-million(or billion)aires. We have some of those lawyers here in Minnesota that made, quite literally, tens of thousands of dollars an hour for their "work" on the tobacco lawsuits. Such massive payouts for little work only perpetuate the cycle.

[Old Fuff]

Frankly, the cities and state attorney generals' who brought these lawsuits didn't expect to win, except in rare cases. That didn't matter. The object was to impose such a financial burden on the manufacturers in the form of legal costs that they'd agree to an out-of-court settlement similar to the "S&W Agreement." If that happened the Anti's would literally control all of the handgun makers.

Hopefully everyone has noticed that the price of handguns of all kinds has gone up considerably during the last few years, and a number of companies have either quit making them or cut back the number of models.

These lawsuits are a major cause of this.

Never forget - they sue, we pay.

[Battler]

That's why I (almost) oppose gun liability protection, I want them to deal with this problem across the board.

Anyone with half a brain should know that "we all got it coming". They're going after McDonalds, for @#%!sakes.

Trial lawyers may be big; but they're not bigger than the rest of us - a parasite can't become bigger than the WHOLE host.

Maybe Mcdonalds + a couple of other companies can put a stop to this nonsense.

[Tropical Z]

America needs tort reform NNNNNNOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!

[twoblink]

The problem with tort reform is; it usually takes a bunch of lawyers suing for tort reform to get tort reform.. :confused: :banghead:

[orangeninja]

I believe certain states have already instilled tort reform to where the loser of a civil suit pays the court expenses of all sides. It should be federally mandated.

[HankB]

I'm waiting for someone to sue Dell, HP, and IBM because people use their computers to download copyrighted music and movies.

Maybe then we'd see a more "all-encompassing" law against frivolous lawsuits seeking damages from the maker of a legal product on the basis of criminal misuse by the ultimate purchaser.