Wife's nude pics on lost phone end up online

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

>> It's not fair to go after deep pocket defendants... (paraphrased)

There is a good reason why in most states, we allow injured parties to go after the 'deep pockets.' The concept is called joint and severable liability, and I'm pretty sure most states still follow this, although there is a trend with tort reform to do away with this rule.

The idea behind this is that we, as a society, place a higher priority on making injured parties whole than we do protecting the liability/exposure of people who cause or have a hand in causing injuries.

How this would work is that the plaintiff sues everyone, gets the money from the easiest place to get money (from the corporation who probably has enough premises liability coverage to pay for everything). That corporation's insurance company here (McDonald's) would then in turn seek contribution from the employees.

Other systems discourage injured parties from suing in the first place because no one will represent someone who has a low likelihood of ever receiving anything other than a [worthless] judgment.

I think it's a fine system, and it's not perfect, but if we think the courts are supposed to make people whole, this is the only way folks will ever be made whole.

It makes more sense to me to go after deep pockets defendants for the reasons you mention when there are real, somewhat objective damages or costs to care for the injured person although I still think it's more of a mistake than you do*. But in a case like the subject of this thread, what would it mean to make people whole? I have less faith than you do that a jury will make an appropriate determination.

*I think we might be better off having some sort of general insurance pool to cover real damages rather than expecting the nearest deep pocket to pay. I think there's societal harm in the belief that if you perceive yourself as injured, the best thing to do is magnify your injuries in a court case and seek payment from whomever you can get it from. But honestly, I don't sit around thinking about this a whole lot.

I do know there are a lot of auto accident suits that occur or escalate beyond settlement that seem to reflect a desire to get more money than one probably really deserves. While people need to be able to seek relief from their injuries, injuries shouldn't be regarded as a lottery ticket and I don't think the whole personal injury law phenomena is totally made up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It makes more sense to me to go after deep pockets defendants for the reasons you mention when there are real, somewhat objective damages or costs to care for the injured person although I still think it's more of a mistake than you do*. But in a case like the subject of this thread, what would it mean to make people whole? I have less faith than you do that a jury will make an appropriate determination.

Take it up with your state legislature. They could abolish dignity torts if they wanted to. And for the umpteenth time, just because a plaintiff asks for $1 million doesn't mean that they're going to get anything close to that. In fact, if this thing goes to trial and I'm the defense attorney, I'm going to ask the plaintiff to justify to the jury exactly how they came to the $3 million number. In fact, a good defense theme might be 'although the plaintiff arguably suffered a wrong, it does not mean she has hit a gold mine.' (or something to that effect). My point is that again, there doesn't have to be any basis whatsoever for requesting certain relief... it's just words on paper.

*I think we might be better off having some sort of general insurance pool to cover real damages rather than expecting the nearest deep pocket to pay. I think there's societal harm in the belief that if you perceive yourself as injured, the best thing to do is magnify your injuries in a court case and seek payment from whomever you can get it from. But honestly, I don't sit around thinking about this a whole lot.

We do that with our cars. Just about every state requires you to carry insurance. I know some are starting to require folks to carry major medical. I don't think, however, for intentional torts, that those should necessarily be insurable. If you attempt to murder me, on purpose, I ought to be able to sue you for everything you're worth. It only seems fair that it should be you, the party who injured me that has the burden of making me whole rather than some general insurance pool. Would it be fair, since your sentence is 10 years that 3,650 people be chosen at random and have to each serve a day of your sentence?

I do know there are a lot of auto accident suits that occur or escalate beyond settlement that seem to reflect a desire to get more money than one probably really deserves. While people need to be able to seek relief from their injuries, injuries shouldn't be regarded as a lottery ticket and I don't think the whole personal injury law phenomena is totally made up.

As someone who handles personal injury cases (we don't actively seek them out, but I get saddled with the ones that come through the door), I have yet to see someone get rich in a personal injury settlement. In fact, more often than not, the injured party has to either take the insurance company's check (and take a hickey) or take his chances with a jury which might award him nothing... not to mention have to put up with the difficulty of a defendant who has no assets or exempt assets to go after with a judgment.

Personal injury law, quite honestly, is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. The insurance companies always somehow manage to turn a profit.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Take it up with your state legislature. They could abolish dignity torts if they wanted to. And for the umpteenth time, just because a plaintiff asks for $1 million doesn't mean that they're going to get anything close to that. In fact, if this thing goes to trial and I'm the defense attorney, I'm going to ask the plaintiff to justify to the jury exactly how they came to the $3 million number. In fact, a good defense theme might be 'although the plaintiff arguably suffered a wrong, it does not mean she has hit a gold mine.' (or something to that effect). My point is that again, there doesn't have to be any basis whatsoever for requesting certain relief... it's just words on paper.



We do that with our cars. Just about every state requires you to carry insurance. I know some are starting to require folks to carry major medical. I don't think, however, for intentional torts, that those should necessarily be insurable. If you attempt to murder me, on purpose, I ought to be able to sue you for everything you're worth. It only seems fair that it should be you, the party who injured me that has the burden of making me whole rather than some general insurance pool. Would it be fair, since your sentence is 10 years that 3,650 people be chosen at random and have to each serve a day of your sentence?



As someone who handles personal injury cases (we don't actively seek them out, but I get saddled with the ones that come through the door), I have yet to see someone get rich in a personal injury settlement. In fact, more often than not, the injured party has to either take the insurance company's check (and take a hickey) or take his chances with a jury which might award him nothing... not to mention have to put up with the difficulty of a defendant who has no assets or exempt assets to go after with a judgment.

Personal injury law, quite honestly, is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. The insurance companies always somehow manage to turn a profit.

Weren't we talking third party- deep pockets cases? I don't think we're better off making the nearest deep pocket pay if they are only tenuously involved in the injury. It's not much better than your everybody serves a day example; it's we're basically going to make your company serve this because you happened to be around. I think rather than doing for somewhat associated but not particularly responsible deep pocket, we'd be better thinking of it a different way with people seeking relief from a fund they were obligated to contribute to.

I'm also not sure why you are so hung up on the amount they get in the current case and keep returning to it as if it matters. If the amount is small enough that the people who committed the actual injury to her dignity can pay, the people who posted the photos or texted her, great, but I still don't think McDonald's needs to pay anything be it $3 or $3 million.

They were no more responsible as a corporation for what happened than the guy who left his phone with the nude photos was. Why would they need to pick up his loss of dignity tab?

And I'm not sure why you think I'm completely opposed to dignity torts. I'm opposed to making people pay for stuff that, all things considered, isn't particularly their fault. If I harm your dignity, seek to recovery from me alone, not from an entity not particularly responsible for my behavior simply because they've got more money.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And I'm not sure why you think I'm completely opposed to dignity torts. I'm opposed to making people pay for stuff that, all things considered, isn't particularly their fault. If I harm your dignity, seek to recovery from me alone, not from an entity not particularly responsible for my behavior simply because they've got more money.

Because this is, to be blunt, completely untenable as a system..

The dollar value of dignity could be anything from $0.75 to $750,000 depending on whether the loss of job possibilities, etc. are truthful and correct. The dollar value of a recovery possible from a manager at McDonald's could probably be anything from $3 to maybe $30,000 over the course of decades (and worth less at present-day value).

Simply put, the agent of direct harm likely can't produce a sufficient recovery. So what now? Do you just say "too bad"? The ramifications of that seem much worse than the small chance of an illegitimate recovery when liability is extended to the corporate entity.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because this is, to be blunt, completely untenable as a system..

The dollar value of dignity could be anything from $0.75 to $750,000 depending on whether the loss of job possibilities, etc. are truthful and correct. The dollar value of a recovery possible from a manager at McDonald's could probably be anything from $3 to maybe $30,000 over the course of decades (and worth less at present-day value).

Simply put, the agent of direct harm likely can't produce a sufficient recovery. So what now? Do you just say "too bad"? The ramifications of that seem much worse than the small chance of an illegitimate recovery when liability is extended to the corporate entity.

Okay, so then we go to the sort of general fund idea where we're all self insured against dumbassery of our own or other people's making. (ETA: along with my dueling pistols suggestion earlier, could we consider a debtors' prison for people who make too little money for sufficient recovery but who are the actual agents of harm? I'm not really serious, but one of the really perplexing parts when you think about it, is how little responsibility the actual wrong-doers will have to take.)

Seriously, I don't know how it ought to work, but I'm apparently a whole lot less satisfied with the present system than the lawyers on this thread which probably reflects at least two things: if I had more direct experience, I might change my mind and if you are already making a living within the present system, you probably buy in more.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Okay, so then we go to the sort of general fund idea where we're all self insured against dumbasery of our own or other people's making.

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that's actually how the current system that you're railing against works - that cost is included in every burger (and Norelco razor, and monthly daycare payment, and...).

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Seriously, I don't know how it ought to work, but I'm apparently a whole lot less satisfied with the present system than the lawyers on this thread which probably reflects at least two things: if I had more direct experience, I might change my mind and if you are already making a living within the present system, you probably buy in more.

I think you actually gave the 'correct' answer earlier: no one can really come up with a better system. If I heard one, I'd be down for it - but I've never heard one.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that's actually how the current system that you're railing against works - that cost is included in every burger (and Norelco razor, and monthly daycare payment, and...).



I think you actually gave the 'correct' answer earlier: no one can really come up with a better system. If I heard one, I'd be down for it - but I've never heard one.

I acknowledge that I can't back this up very well, but I still think it would be better for our perception of being responsible for ourselves not to have the pay out connected to some corporation say 5% responsible when the dumbass himself is say 20% responsible.

Sure, we can spread the corporate cost out to the rest of us through other means, but there's still a suggestion of actual responsibility by the company and therefore a suggestion that we aren't mainly responsible for ourselves. And I don't know if this comes out in the societal wash or not.

(Now, I don't really know how my general fund idea encourages individual responsibility better since it probably would require the government to act on our behalf.)

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you actually gave the 'correct' answer earlier: no one can really come up with a better system. If I heard one, I'd be down for it - but I've never heard one.

Exactly - there are a lot of smart lawyers, judges and law professors who have been trying to come up with a better system, but nothing has come up as of yet.

Also, as far as being "self-insured" against these risks, even putting aside the larger companies that are self-insured in one way or another, that's what property/liability/umbrella insurance is there to do. As long as you are within the insurance contract, the insurers are picking up part of the bill on this. Now, it might trickle down into higher insurance rates later on, but there is a mechanism there for at least partial protection. (I could go into more, but this is what I do for a living, and it would probably get too boring for most of the board).

I don't think it's quite correct to say that the law community is satisfied because they are "already making a living" in the current system. Honestly, lawyers will still find work in an alternate system, through counseling individuals and companies, putting together risk avoidance plans, etc. Plus, as I noted above, there are people in the profession who are looking for a "better" option.

Also, again, the perception of widespread outrageous court judgments isn't entirely correct. RC, Kevin, GP and others may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't in-court litigation at an all-time low (i.e. the "Vanishing Trial" theory)? It obviously doesn't account for all litigation (since it takes so long to get to court anyway, through discovery, depositions, etc.), but it shows that these types of cases are the exception, not the norm.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I acknowledge that I can't back this up very well, but I still think it would be better for our perception of being responsible for ourselves not to have the pay out connected to some corporation say 5% responsible when the dumbass himself is say 20% responsible.

Sure, we can spread the corporate cost out to the rest of us through other means, but there's still a suggestion of actual responsibility by the company and therefore a suggestion that we aren't mainly responsible for ourselves. And I don't know if this comes out in the societal wash or not.

(Now, I don't really know how my general fund idea encourages individual responsibility better since it probably would require the government to act on our behalf.)

As to your first point in the above post, a number of states have a mechanism in place for this in comparative negligence; in that way, either the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by his/her "fault" in the incident, or, in some states, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% liable by the judge or jury, the plaintiff will walk away with nothing.