Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I don't think this (holding a merely tangentially-related third-party deep-pocket defendant liable to up the plaintiff's earn) actually happens very often - I think the 'ideal' of the deep-pocket defendant is much more prevalent than the actuality. That's actually why it is such a powerful defense - the reality is outstripped by the outrage. Now, the plaintiff can file against just about any party, but Kevin has already covered why that's really not a big deal from an award standpoint.
Remember, too, that the media loves to show "frivolous" lawsuits (mostly because people have a preconception that there are far too many lawsuits nowadays), so we don't exactly see a representative sample, and even then the coverage is often very cursory and incendiary.
The classic example would be, ironically, the McDonald's 'hot coffee' case, which was not only not frivolous under any reasonable standard, but the award really wasn't even that far out of line with the nature of the injury and the corporate conduct involved. However, it's pretty easy to say "holy shit what a retard, obv obv obv coffee = hot!" and so that's what people think . . . we don't hear so much about fused labia requiring reconstructive surgery, or the fact that MCD corporate refused repeated warnings to serve the coffee cooler because it would result in more refills (at the cost of fractional cents per cup).
|
Actually, I was hoping that nobody would bring up why I felt like the hot coffee case was so different from this one because I can remember being involved with a discussion about that here too. And I do feel like that case is quite different.
Maybe it is my own misconception about how many cases actually go to trial with the deep pockets defendant still attached or even what percentage of those end up with awards. But I know that the fear of such lawsuits seems to drive a lot of goofy behavior. Maybe, as usual per my worldview, the media is to blame.
Hybrid Mode
