The Portland Press Herald reports on a legal debate allegedly going on in the state of Maine right now. (I say “allegedly” because the article relies on the tried and true journalistic tactic of describing what “some” say and what “others” and “critics” argue, while identifying only one or two people who take these positions.) The debate is over whether too many cases are settling out-of-court rather than going to trial; according to statistics cited, only about 2% of civil cases in Maine have made it to trial in the last two years.
Some see settlements reached by compromise as a better outcome than a trial, which is expensive and risky for both sides.
But others argue that the trend has moved justice underground. With fewer trials there are fewer public verdicts that set the legal boundaries for the rest of society. And without verdicts, there are no appeals, in which the state supreme courts make precedent-setting rulings that future decision makers can rely on.
As I mentioned, it’s unclear precisely who is taking these positions in Maine, but from the hints in the article, it appears to be trial lawyers complaining, and everyone else on the other side. The biggest complaint seems to be that cases don’t set monetary precedents that can be used to ratchet up the risks for future defendants, thus inducing them to settle for big money.
5 Comments
On the other hand, too much settling makes it easier to bring baseless suits in the hope of a nuisance settlement.
So, maybe these doctors should sue the big pharmaceutical companies for making all of these nifty vaccinations: after all, every case of whooping cough or polio we don’t see is money out of our pockets! Since no one seems to get these diseases any more, there is nor public record of the misery they cause, and we can’t use these miserable crippled victims in our future campaigns to get people vaccinated! Great idea, huh?
“some” people would read this, and think I was nuts. How come no one stands up when these trial lawyers say the same thing, and just declare “Hey! You guys are full of E. Coli!” ?
“Your Money or your life” is most offened settled by a payment of cash on hand with credit cards.
We minimize such demands through the law of extortion.
Yeah, my take on this was that it could cut either way. Not until someone has spent a month preparing for a trial and had a jury essentially laugh in his face does he really know what “baseless” is.
The biggest complaint seems to be that [settlement] cases don’t set monetary precedents that can be used to ratchet up the risks for future defendants, thus inducing them to settle for big money.
Doesn’t anyone see the irony here? The lawyers don’t want settlements now, but want large monetary precedents, so that in the future they can settle for big money.
Parenthetically added: As if the settlements today aren’t for big enough money…