BottledViolence wrote:
Our system is designed to make lawyers rich. That is all. We have no accountability in this country because there is always someone you can sue to make it all better.
Next time you pay far out the ass for an office visit, thank this shitbag for making medical costs so high.
Of course, the flipside of this is that lawsuits are often the only means of instituting accountability in the first place. Obviously, this is an absurdity, and it's not a rare example. I wouldn't mind a more aggressive 'frivolous lawsuit' statute, if it was well-crafted.
(For instance, for lawsuits, a requirement that the plaintiff's lawyer put an abbreviated
prima facie* case before a judge, without even involving the defendant's lawyers, to see if there's any point in continuing. This would cut down massively on both the caseloads of the regular courts, and on the number of cases settled by the defendants just to make it go away.)
What people forget is that in every case where there's a shitbag lawyer filing a suit that has no merit, just hoping for an out-of-court settlement, there's another lawyer, on the opposite side of the room, doing his damnedest to make sure the shitbag goes home empty-handed.
*: "On the face of it", or something similar to that. Essentially, the judge would listen to a summary of the plaintiff's baseline case, decide if any elements of it had enough merit to warrant a trial, and make a ruling. In this case, for instance, the initial ruling would probably remove two defendants instantly (the studio and the doctor). If the lawyer can actually show that 'alarmed security exits' are the industry standard, then he might be able to make a case that the theater was marginally neglectful.
