Comments on: Frivolous suits and inadequate sanctions, redux

By: Anirban

Anirban — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:09:51 +0000

Always generous with other people’s time and money. Everything boils down to who sues whom and who sues first.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:16:22 +0000

“While the court system must remain open for the redress of a citizen’s perceived injustices, there is a point at which even the most liberal interpretation of personal rights fails in the light of common sense. This is one such case.”

I am glad that this Court can recognize a flagrant abuse of the court system. However, why do judges have to bend over backwards to allow frivolous lawsuits? It is as if they are saying that they are incapable of using a modicum of intelligence in deciding whether or not to allow a law suit to proceed. It the judges think so little of their own intelligence, maybe they should be in another line of work. It goes without saying that if we had a looser pays system we would have less of these abuses happening. Of course since this was a pro se litigant then it this case it probably wouldn’t have made a difference.

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:07:42 +0000

You’d think that at some point, even the plaintiffs’ bar might be willing to get behind better sanctions for self-serving reasons because claims running wild cheapen their overall project. But maybe that calculation is wrong, I don’t know. I think that right now, lawsuit entitlement is so deeply ingrained in our culture that no reform could be expected to achieve fast results. Ultimately, for pro se litigants at least, it’s about the individual’s sense of personal restraint in the face of imposition of social costs. For many, that sense is badly atrophied.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:46:36 +0000

The question, David, is what the meaning of ‘frivolous’ is?

There used to a guy in the patent office who defined frivolus as violating the second law of thermodynamics. There actually was some legal arguement to allow appeal, but the second law prevailed.

A few months ago Ted Frank told us about a lawnmover case. The mower had a kinematic tendacy ala the ‘Carrie’ movie and flipped over three times on a 16% grade. The plaintif atorney claimed the grade to be 11%.

Our culture believes that drug companies put profits over health and yet fights to get into clinical trials.

Seat belts and engineering of a robust driver’s space saved a lady’s life, but the car company was sued anyway.

Companies submit to arduous regulation to demonstate then concern for safty and quality and yet are subjected to a moronic predjudice against corporations.

A lot of these problems come from our law schools. Judges claim that two plus two is three is a matter of fact and wrongfully put the matter to an ignorant jury while ignoring the litigation fine of the defendent. The Breast Implant matter was exactly this way.

Let’s level Harvard!