Frivolous lawsuit loser pays court cost !

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HTSS_TR

Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
19,528
Location
Lake Forest, CA
If you file frivolous lawsuit and you loose you should pay defendant's attorney fees. This will deter people and lawyers from filling frivolous lawsuits.

Quote:
After a state jury declared that Cinemark, the nation's third-largest theater chain, was not responsible for the Colorado theater shooting in which 12 people were killed during a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" in 2012, the chain now wants the victims who brought the lawsuit to pay its legal fees from the case.

According to Deadline, paperwork was filed last week in which Cinemark is seeking $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs from the case.

The lawsuit was filed by more than two dozen surviving victims of the shooting and relatives of the dead.

After years of litigation, Cinemark won the case on May 19, when a six-person jury unanimously came to the verdict that the theater chain was not partially liable for the shooting.

Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek costs.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cinemark-wants-colorado-theater-shooting-170944758.html
 
Should always be that way IMO.

If you've put the other party to expense, then you should pay.

I saw one case that cost my company a handful of tens of $M in legals, but costs weren't awarded as the party that sued "couldn't afford" to pay the costs that had been incurred...actually, I've seen two of those.
 
Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out before they go to trial.

Do you think the plaintiff should pay if they lost a case that had merit? Or pay only when losing "frivolous" lawsuits? If the latter, isn't that the judge's responsibility to not let it go to trial in the first place?
 
Top Ten Frivolous Lawsuits by Legalzoom:

Quote:
In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.


Quote:
In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn't operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman's parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn't open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen's death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.


Quote:
In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris's family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.


Quote:
In May 2003, Stephen Joseph of San Francisco sued Kraft foods for putting trans-fat in their Oreo cookies. Joseph wanted an injunction to order Kraft to stop selling Oreos to children. Once the media caught wind of Joseph's lawsuit, the media blitz became too much for him to handle. He decided to drop the suit.


https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-ten-frivolous-lawsuits
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Do you think the plaintiff should pay if they lost a case that had merit? Or pay only when losing "frivolous" lawsuits? If the latter, isn't that the judge's responsibility to not let it go to trial in the first place?

Remember that the burden of proof in a lawsuit is generally the balance of probabilities. It's not uncommon at all for the defendant to countersue the plaintiff, since there are obviously two sides to every story, and legal fees are generally sought in such a case. So, one needs to choose one's battles carefully. Trying to blame a theater chain for a nutcase going on a rampage is silly, unless you can really demonstrate some negligence on their part. I assume the theater chain didn't give free, loaded handguns to everyone who walked in the door, nor did they offer gift certificates to people who would commit felonies onsite. Some people were simply looking for a big cheque, and it bit them in the hindquarters.

Someone very recently up here was trying legal shenanigans with the lottery corporation, claiming that it was their fault he threw his "winning ticket" away. The ticket reader was out of order, and didn't say he had a losing ticket. It said it had an error, as the plaintiff even acknowledged in court. He threw his ticket out anyway and claimed the lottery corporation owed him millions of dollars. Instead, he was given the privilege of paying their legal fees.
 
I think you hit the issue nicely there. There certainly are plenty of lawyers that will say no to an idiotic case. Unfortunately, people will shop lawyers until they hear what they want to hear. As a matter of fact, in the lottery case I mentioned, the fellow went through more than one. Any lawyer that said something he didn't want to hear was clearly wrong and subsequently dismissed.
 
A fair number of those lawsuits never make it to court. It's often less expensive for corporations to settle out of court, even if they are not to blame, than to allow a case to get to court. I'm quite sure some of the more unscrupulous attorneys understand how to play that game.
 
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
I'm quite sure some of the more unscrupulous attorneys understand how to play that game.



Welcome to family court... I hope you're not a dad...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If you file frivolous lawsuit and you loose you should pay defendant's attorney fees. This will deter people and lawyers from filling frivolous lawsuits.

Quote:
After a state jury declared that Cinemark, the nation's third-largest theater chain, was not responsible for the Colorado theater shooting in which 12 people were killed during a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" in 2012, the chain now wants the victims who brought the lawsuit to pay its legal fees from the case.

According to Deadline, paperwork was filed last week in which Cinemark is seeking $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs from the case.

The lawsuit was filed by more than two dozen surviving victims of the shooting and relatives of the dead.

After years of litigation, Cinemark won the case on May 19, when a six-person jury unanimously came to the verdict that the theater chain was not partially liable for the shooting.

Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek costs.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cinemark-wants-colorado-theater-shooting-170944758.html


The fact that the case was lost doesn't mean its frivolous. I think this is a very bad PR move by the corporation. One weekend in boycotts will be way more than a million bucks.
 
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Frivolous lawsuits SHOULD BE thrown out before they go to trial, however often times they are not.






Fixed it for you.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If you file frivolous lawsuit and you loose you should pay defendant's attorney fees. This will deter people and lawyers from filling frivolous lawsuits.

Quote:
After a state jury declared that Cinemark, the nation's third-largest theater chain, was not responsible for the Colorado theater shooting in which 12 people were killed during a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" in 2012, the chain now wants the victims who brought the lawsuit to pay its legal fees from the case.

According to Deadline, paperwork was filed last week in which Cinemark is seeking $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs from the case.

The lawsuit was filed by more than two dozen surviving victims of the shooting and relatives of the dead.

After years of litigation, Cinemark won the case on May 19, when a six-person jury unanimously came to the verdict that the theater chain was not partially liable for the shooting.

Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek costs.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cinemark-wants-colorado-theater-shooting-170944758.html


The fact that the case was lost doesn't mean its frivolous. I think this is a very bad PR move by the corporation. One weekend in boycotts will be way more than a million bucks.





I think you fail to realize that not every state is as gun-phobic as Massachusetts.
 
I know a taxi company that has a full time attorney working for them in their offices. When someone bumps their head getting in or out of a taxi, slips and falls down in front of their door to their house after having a few drinks, gets in a fender bender etc. The driver is encouraged to get them to sign an incident report and the attorney will contact them asap. If $500-$1000 would make them happy they would have a check within days. The taxi company was considered a lawsuit target similar to the rapid transit where people on the bus would fall down and fake injuries for some quick cash.
 
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out before they go to trial.
lolololololol you really believe that??
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: xfactor9
Frivolous lawsuits are settled out of court for cash on a regular basis rather than have expense of a trial, dirty little secret of legal system is settlements and deals.



FTFY

Now. A bigger issue: If the theater chain was not responsible for the illegal actions of another, and it wasnt, then the big scary gun wasnt either.
 
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
I know a taxi company that has a full time attorney working for them in their offices. When someone bumps their head getting in or out of a taxi, slips and falls down in front of their door to their house after having a few drinks, gets in a fender bender etc. The driver is encouraged to get them to sign an incident report and the attorney will contact them asap. If $500-$1000 would make them happy they would have a check within days. The taxi company was considered a lawsuit target similar to the rapid transit where people on the bus would fall down and fake injuries for some quick cash.



I'm wondering how long before the Uber drivers realize this... Although based on what they're "paid", it could count for volunteer time...
whistle.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Is this a new low from insurance companies ?
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
DoubleWasp
OVERKILL
  • Locked
BC RCMP apparently shoot member of Anonymous
2 3
Replies
40
Views
11K
Alfred_B
The Critic
Need Help With Rental Home Lease
2
Replies
32
Views
12K
wpod
T
  • Locked
In Canada,a move toward private healthcare option
Replies
15
Views
5K
Tempest
T
  • Locked
Toyota secretive on 'black box' data
2
Replies
31
Views
11K
Vizzy
Back
Top