Tort Reform

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by mschey, Jun 4, 2006.

  1. I can't believe this.....tort reform needs to happen and happen sooner than later. These guys were called a few names and a jury awarded them more money than they would have ever made in 50 lifetimes.
  2. maxpi


    What is a bullying jerk like that doing in management? The laws with teeth in them exist to scare other companies into compliance and I bet that headline is effective in that regard.
  3. It's not just calling name. It's discrimination. I guess the reason why you think it's normal because you are white, and you have "calling name" of other with different race and color all your life.

  4. They put up with that for 2 years? much for self respect.
  5. You guys have to be kidding, right? Do you understand how much money a million is? And to award them 50 X that is ridiculous. Two years of putting up with crap....they deserve a new car, perhaps a nice vacation, but not 50 million.

    My guess is that you're average teenager going through junior high has taken more crap than those guys did.
  6. :) hi
    I just came across this site of the Chairman of Texans for Lawsuit has everything on how texas came to be ranked the best in the U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2006 Report.<a href=“”> DICK WEEKLEY </a>
  7. No problem with this. Great justice that works!
    juries do this and tort law permits this so as to punish criminals by the way of example.

    Doing away with this hallowed principle of tort law puts you squarely in the European style of pseudo corrupt justice. In fact, criminals only smile when they get convicted and pay the victim peanuts awards. The next day they go on with their business as usual. Many are "well connected" with the judges, often belonging to the usual "secret sects", and manage to put the judicial procedures onto a slow burner protecting theses criminals from rigorous prosecution.

    Juries are far from perfect, but much to be preferred to judicial graft and sleaze.
    "We in America use juries because we don't trust our judges" (Justice Scalia, US Supreme Court).

    What you call windfall awards for the victim is of only secondary importance.

  8. No it is not. Do you really believe that NONSENSE? Awarding 50 million dollars to someone because they endured some name calling is compete bullshit. The guy should apologize, perhaps those guys get paid a nice bonus, but not 50 million.

    The ideal scenario is that the punishment fit the crime, and perhaps a penalty. In this case, the award should be no more than their annual salary. Keep in mind....they endured some friggin name calling, teenagers in high school endure that all the time.
  9. It is your right to enertain an opinion different from the jury.

    You want to do away with the jury system and put it in the hands of judges generally untrusted by the people?
    If need be, who is going judge those judges? An ET chit-chat board?

    Your basic choice is between what you have right now and a (mostly corrupt) European style system of justice with lots of immune and protected guys?

    Your choice.

  10. I have never said, or implied that. What I said, is that we need reform. The reform would cap the awards such that the punishment does indeed fit the crime.
    #10     Jul 3, 2006