Port Charges-Class Action Setlement Came today

[Globaliser]

What is a plea bargain or a settlement, but a type of gamble? "We don't think the odds of winning this case are very good so we will take the alternative and let the defendant off for less than he actually did, so we at least get him put away for a while" , or "Should I gamble that the jury will see it my way, and give me what I feel I deserve, or should I take the settlement being offered because it is a sure thing?"

That's the litigants, who I agree have to take chances.

 

My point is that the courts shouldn't exist as a gambling arena for the lawyers' personal gain. And I hate it every time that there is a move that drives our court system towards it.

No system is perfect, but the whole concept of allowing class action suits in my opinion, is an attempt to protect the rights of the small, individual litigant when faced with a relatively huge and wealthy adversary and to me it is worth it to allow lawyers to take these kind of cases to profit from the work they do. As I said before, maybe the amount of 'profit' is out of line. If so, let's attack that aspect of the system not the whole idea of class action suits.

But this type of litigation is not about the small individual litigant with a real grievance who is too oppressed to bring a case. This is about sums of money that are so trivial that they are barely worth arguing about - both to the individual claimants, and in aggregate to the company involved. For all the pious hopes that companies might learn a lesson or be deterred from doing something like this again in the future, the litigants on both sides frankly have better things to worry about. (I apologise if anyone who received a settlement was actually worried about their $7.50 or whatever.)

 

The only people who had anything significant to gain or lose in this whole case were the lawyers - and that is just not right. There really are better ways of regulating the conduct of companies.

[sunshine 229]

That's the litigants, who I agree have to take chances.

 

My point is that the courts shouldn't exist as a gambling arena for the lawyers' personal gain. And I hate it every time that there is a move that drives our court system towards it.But this type of litigation is not about the small individual litigant with a real grievance who is too oppressed to bring a case. This is about sums of money that are so trivial that they are barely worth arguing about - both to the individual claimants, and in aggregate to the company involved. For all the pious hopes that companies might learn a lesson or be deterred from doing something like this again in the future, the litigants on both sides frankly have better things to worry about. (I apologise if anyone who received a settlement was actually worried about their $7.50 or whatever.)

 

The only people who had anything significant to gain or lose in this whole case were the lawyers - and that is just not right. There really are better ways of regulating the conduct of companies.

 

I agree that the amounts payable to the individuals in this case were pretty negligable but who would get to decide what constituted a real grievance and what is trivial? I don't think that many people would claim that $7.50 was anything but a trivial amount but if you asked several different people to draw the line as to what is trivial and what isn't I think you might find big differences in what they would each class as a trivial amount.

 

I'm willing to agree that often the lawyers who win this type of case do get over-compensated, but I just can't think of a better system that would still provide opportunity for the small litigant who is at the mercy of a much wealthier entity. I think I understand the frustration that lies behind your statement:

"For all the pious hopes that companies might learn a lesson or be deterred from doing something like this again in the future, the litigants on both sides frankly have better things to worry about."

 

but I still think that the existence of suits like this, does act in some small way as a deterrent to even worse gouging by companies. Maybe I am just naive.

 

In any case I have enjoyed this discussion and while I don't think either of us has totally converted the other to our viewpoint, you have raised some points that have me thinking. I'd like to think maybe I have done the same for you but maybe that is presumptuous on my part.:)

[Globaliser]

In any case I have enjoyed this discussion and while I don't think either of us has totally converted the other to our viewpoint, you have raised some points that have me thinking. I'd like to think maybe I have done the same for you but maybe that is presumptuous on my part.:)

Me likewise. I do understand everything that you're saying. If there were no other ways of regulating corporate behaviour then I agree that class actions might be the only tool. But they aren't, and other tools could be used more and to better effect, and without the disadvantages that come with them.

[sunshine 229]

Nice resurrection, Globaliser.:)

 

I agree pretty silly case.

 

Just to uphold my side of 'the argument' though, just because one class action case is silly it doesn't mean they all are. I could find lots of cases that appear to be a miscarriage of justice but that doesn't mean we should throw the whole legal system out.

 

But, I don't mean to come down all heavy on this, it was a pretty stupid outcome in this case.

 

I do have to disagree with Judge Ortega's opinion in one detail though; his statement that "moviegoers are not such morons". I guess he doesn't watch Maury very often. :D

[Globaliser]

Definitely posted only for the entertainment value, this one! :D

[newmexicoNita]

You know law suites that seem frivilous to me just P2$$ me off. Last Friday, after our return from the wonderful cruise we had to head to Sam Warehouse to buy, among other things, food so I can cook for about 60-75 this Thursday. While I was pulling 1 8 pack of soup from a shelf 4 other packs came tumbling down. 2 hit me on my head and one my face. I did have a headache plus my upper gums were pretty badly cut up. I could have insisted on being taken to the hospital in case I had a concusion, probably could have sued for enough to pay for serveral more cruises and even gotten my name in the paper, but I didn't do any of that. I wasn't really hurt. After I screamed for DH, got some sypathy from others who saw what happened and flagged down a stock boy so he could get the cans lined up better I finished by shopping. Of course this is not the same as a class action law suit, but does show the difference between those who look to get something for nothing and those who do not. Those who make out in these kinds of cases are the lawyers while the cost of insurance sky rockets. We, in the long run pay for this. Now off my high horse for today..........NMNita