Comments on: Florida reform in trouble?: Jeff Kottkamp

By: pgbMD

pgbMD — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:04:30 +0000

From what I understand the Amendment 3 cap of $750k for pain and suffering is not affected just the amount/cut the lawyers get from the settlement/judgement.

By: Philip Monte

Philip Monte — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:54:32 +0000

Over time, I have come to agree that a free market solution offers the best chance for a fix that is fair to all parties. Permitting waivers of one’s rights under the Amendment, or for that matter the right to sue beyond certain limits, may well be the best way to achieve an appropriate and principled balance of rights among all parties. There is probably more of a power imbalance with respect to the second form of waiver, but that could be addressed by legislation affording a minimal baseline right to sue where legitimate harm has occurred.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:55:48 +0000

As the link notes, Public Citizen generally demands more advertising regulation, but recognizes the problems with excessive regulation only when it comes to attorneys.

By: Seth

Seth — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:58:48 +0000

“Apparently courts and consumer advocates are willing to trust only lawyers with the freedom of contract or speech.”

Forgive me for being dense, but I clicked through the “speech” link and I still don’t understand why you suggest that courts and consumer advocates “trust only lawyers” with freedom of speech.

Also, could both the attorneys and (potentially) doctors waivers be considered coerced? I wonder if the client/patient would not be in a position to bargain depending on when they were asked to sign the waiver.