Posted By:
Todd (nolemmings)Jay Behrens:
Requiring an unsuccessful plaintiff to "foot the bill" for defense fees would lead to innumerable injustices almost too great to calculate. Can you realistically believe Ford, GM, MCDonald's and corporate America would ever be sued by "the little guy" if he faced having to pay their gargantuan fees? Talk about potential litigation abuse.
As for frivolous cases, the rules and statutes already on the books provide that someone who pursues a frivolous claim may be required to pay the other side's fees. The fact that you seldom hear of such fees being awarded might be attributed to the fact that few cases are frivolous.
Pete:
Your remark about the McDonald's case is typical of that offered by many, and is utterly ignorant. Please type " McDonald's coffee" into your search engine and review any one of a number of reports about that case. For your convenience, you can try this one:
http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
One can argue all one wants about lawyer spin, but I challenge anyone to find their own source and show how the underlying facts are materially different than what is reported here. I believe that if you really knew what happened in that case, your opinion would change.
Jay Miller:
I have no problem with reviewing the processes involved in class action suits, but was really not aware that this was perceived as a significant issue in the tort reform debates. Good points to consider, however.