US curbs class-action lawsuits

[vaulos]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4275409.stm

The US Congress has passed legislation aimed at curbing class-action lawsuits against big companies.
Most such suits, in which people join together to sue the same defendant, will move from the state to the often less sympathetic federal courts.

I actually think this will end up being good and bad. It will be good, because it will help stem the tide of silly and pointless lawsuits, and bad because I don't believe the Federal Courts are prepared to handle the caseload (and so legitimate suits will be dropped, simply because they aren't looked at closely enough by jurists).

[Dost]

I am sure that Halliburton is glad to see that their efforts have paid off

[superwalrus]

eh... still won't matter. Things still have to be done in front of a jury... and the federal courts still have to apply the state laws.

Walrus

[vaulos]

Actually, Halliburton probably won't be affected in the least by this kinda of measure. After all, most of thier business is international (i.e., already in the perview of the federal court). Think Big Tobacco, Enron, Walmart, etc. And even then, the only thing this really does is put it onto a court that is more strict about what kinds of lawsuits are allowed, as well as making the class-action lawsuits unified. In other words, you now can't sue a company 4 times in as many states, you now have to sue them in the Federal Court once (and will a better reason than was required by the states).

There end up only being two groups of people really screwed by this legislation: lawyers and those who believe the court is a lottery system.

[Ddrak]

and the federal courts still have to apply the state laws

That's the interesting point against it - now it's up to federal courts to sort out the messy differences between state laws without backlogging themselves into oblivion.

I think overall this particular bill is pretty neutral. There will have to be some boosting of the federal circuits to cater for the extra case load but essentially nothing has legally changed in the standards being applied (at least as far as I understand it).

The issue that bothers me about tort reform is the concept of capping punitive damages, and that's not happened yet.

Dd

[superwalrus]

That's the interesting point against it - now it's up to federal courts to sort out the messy differences between state laws without backlogging themselves into oblivion.

They've been doing this for like 75 years now.. they won't have a problem.

And capping punitive damages? Almost every state caps damages in some tort suits (medical malpractice, etc).

Walrus

[superwalrus]

you now can't sue a company 4 times in as many states, you now have to sue them in the Federal Court once

Not true at all, you can sue them in as many places as there are states.

Walrus

[Ddrak]

Almost every state caps damages in some tort suits (medical malpractice, etc).

I know, and it's bad. Punitive damages should never be capped. As soon as you start capping them it becomes a cost/benefit equation for the company.

Dd

[superwalrus]

eh...

but regardless, the states are going to be the ones capping, NOT the federal government.

Walrus

[Embar Angylwrath]

The real issue that needed to be addressed was attorny's fees. When more money goes to the law firm than to the class members, something is wrong.

[Relbeek Einre]

For once I agree with Embar.

[Dost]

Actually halliburton WILL benefit from it, considering all the money they have already shelled out in class-action asbestos lawsuits

[vaulos]

The only way they could possibly benefit, was if the lawsuits were frivolous to begin with. Otherwise, the Federal Court is more than likely to act on them claim.

[Klast Brell]

The promise: George W on the campaign trail pledges to reduce healthcare costs by curbing frivolous malpractice lawsuits
The reality: large corporations are shielded from liability.

[vaulos]

Exactly how are corporations "shielded from liability" by shifting it to a higher court?

[Klast Brell]

Exactly how are corporations "shielded from liability" by shifting it to a higher court?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148003,00.html

Businesses complain that state judges and juries have been too generous to plaintiffs.
---
Federal courts are expected to allow fewer large class action suits to go forward

[Arathena]

By appointing corporate friendly federal judges, Valous. Remember the Konspiracy memos?

This is long overdue. Interstate entities should be controlled by the federal government, not the states - Me, sitting on my ass in Pittsburgh, using a product made in Nashville by a company HQed in San Francisco is interstate commerce at its finest. For me, fifty guys from Alaska, and two point five Hawaiians to sue in California because a guy in Kentucky made a mistake is both ludicrous and an abandonment of constitutional federal duty. (article 1, section 8, paragraph 3)

On punative damages: They prbably shouldn'd be capped, for reasons of risk management, and ineffectiveness of capped amounts to hurt the Microsofts of the nation - but the amount rewarded for punative damages should not, in any manner, be influenced by the suer, nor should the suer see a penny beyond adequate compensation for medical bills, property damage, lost wages, and so on. Getting a second degree burn on your hand from a too-hot hambuger at Mc'Ds should not entitle you to a million bucks, but it should entitle you to have your doctor's bill paid.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Klast,

"Shielded from liability" is a misrepresentation of fact, and you know it.

[Ddrak]

I have to agree with Embar on that one. I think "less likely to be found liable" would be perhaps a better way to put it, but it's not a "shield".

Dd

[superwalrus]

Exactly how are corporations "shielded from liability" by shifting it to a higher court?

Federal courts are not higher than state courts.

Walrus