Are Winners Loosers?

[Nasor]

It all depends on how much money there is involved. A low paid waitress that sues her boss for discrimination and looses the case cannot afford to pay all, the fees involved so that is why lawyers work on CONTINGENCY fees.

I would tend to agree with you; the potential high cost of losing a lawsuit might discourage poor people from suing, even when they have a legitimate case. As it is a poor waitress who has been wronged can hire a lawyer on contingency. But if she knows that she might face tens of thousands of dollars in fees if she loses, she probably just won't risk it.

Of course, I suspect that people like madanthonywayne or ancientregime would argue that she shouldn't sue in the first place if she's going to lose.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I would tend to agree with you; the potential high cost of losing a lawsuit might discourage poor people from suing, even when they have a legitimate case. As it is a poor waitress who has been wronged can hire a lawyer on contingency. But if she knows that she might face tens of thousands of dollars in fees if she loses, she probably just won't risk it.

Of course, I suspect that people like madanthonywayne or ancientregime would argue that she shouldn't sue in the first place if she's going to lose.

Most people today can't afford a court case even if they were wronged by someone else or company. That's why it isn't a good idea to make those who lose pay the court costs for they wouldn't file the case, as you pointed out, and would continue to suffer the same problems daily until they either quit or die.

 

[ancientregime]

Because sometimes it's genuinely unclear who is in the right.

Then it was genuinely unclear to the prosecutor. If you are unclear about guilt, you have to excuse for bring charges against someone.

 

[ancientregime]

I'd say loser pays should be the norm and, in select cases, the judge could use his discretion to not have the loser pay.

You are basically saying the whole reasoning process is meaningless. When someone is not guilty stand by it. Make the prosecution pay for troubling an innocent person. Letting the judge do that just allows the prosecution to waste tax money and have no accountability for creating trouble in innocent peoples live.

 

[ancientregime]

It all depends on how much money there is involved. A low paid waitress that sues her boss for discrimination and looses the case cannot afford to pay all of the fees involved so that is why lawyers work on CONTINGENCY fees.

She has no business making things up and creating trouble in other peoples lives. The lawyers who bring such cases need to bear responsibility too.

 

[ancientregime]

I would tend to agree with you; the potential high cost of losing a lawsuit might discourage poor people from suing, even when they have a legitimate case. As it is a poor waitress who has been wronged can hire a lawyer on contingency. But if she knows that she might face tens of thousands of dollars in fees if she loses, she probably just won't risk it.

Of course, I suspect that people like madanthonywayne or ancientregime would argue that she shouldn't sue in the first place if she's going to lose.

She wouldn't be responsible for the entire cost; her lawyers would share some of it. If you really have suffered damages, it should not be very hard to provide evidence.

 

[ancientregime]

Most people today can't afford a court case even if they were wronged by someone else or company. That's why it isn't a good idea to make those who lose pay the court costs for they wouldn't file the case, as you pointed out, and would continue to suffer the same problems daily until they either quit or die.

You seem to think the system can only be unfair? If that's true, why don't we scare the ones who are just gonna waste their money trying by threatening them with having to pay more?

I don't agree that is most of the time it is unfair. But even under the way you make it seem, my way would help the victims even more by encouraging them not to lose.

 

[Nasor]

If you really have suffered damages, it should not be very hard to provide evidence.

Oh really? Suppose her boss at the restaurant tells her that he'll only give her a raise if she has sex with him. Clearly this is illegal and open to a lawsuit. How is she ever going to provide evidence for it? Suppose her boss falsely claims that she worked fewer hours than she did. Again, clearly illegal and open to a lawsuit. How specifically is she supposed to prove that?

 

[ancientregime]

Oh really? Suppose her boss at the restaurant tells her that he'll only give her a raise if she has sex with him. Clearly this is illegal and open to a lawsuit. How is she ever going to provide evidence for it? Suppose her boss falsely claims that she worked fewer hours than she did. Again, clearly illegal and open to a lawsuit. How specifically is she supposed to prove that?

Who would want a job where someone had a boss that would only give her a raise for sex? Someone you probably would be jealous of. Who cares if they do that. Why would someone that disagrees want to work for them anyway? I have no problem with prostitution. That's the kind of legislation that needs to be removed. Frivolous. Stupid to say the least. Pure voyeuristic intent of the legal system.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I would tend to agree with you; the potential high cost of losing a lawsuit might discourage poor people from suing, even when they have a legitimate case. As it is a poor waitress who has been wronged can hire a lawyer on contingency. But if she knows that she might face tens of thousands of dollars in fees if she loses, she probably just won't risk it.

Good. The fewer lawsuits, the better. No one would file unless they were damned sure they had a good case.

 

[Challenger78]

You mean procrastination, right ?

I said I was Sotned ko?.. Jeeze, Smoe people thsee days...
Can't let a hooman be..

 

[Enmos]

Can't let a hooman be..

Certainly not, hooman !

 

[cosmictraveler]

There are arbitrators that will take on a problem and solve it to take some of the cases away from the courts and they are binding with the decisions they make. Many more cases could go to arbitration first to see if it can be settled there, if not then a court case would be developed. :shrug: