limits on lawsuits?

[sonoma1993]

should there be a limit on lawsuits? For instance I was listening to this one manger at work. He was saying that if some dumba** shot and kill someone he can be some liable for it because he sold the gun to that person. The only way he can have a lawsuit against him if he made like a mistake when filling out the gun forms, such as not putting the right serial number down, or not spelling error, not recongizing a fake id, or fake ss card, and etc. Also once in awhile you hear about people filing lawsuit against the gun manufacture too because of someone death from a gun.

yeah for the limits on lawsuits id mean as in general.

 

[Strk]

In general or just to the gun industry? Also, if you're selling guns, you better be thorough. All of those forms aren't there for no reason - well some are, but not all of them!

 

[envy me]

The reason they are filing lawsuits against the manufacturers is because the they have money, whereas the person pulling the trigger may not have money.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Lawsuits serve a necessary accountability function in our society, but the flip side is that or society has somehow become excessive in the types of litigation passing through our courtrooms.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
should there be a limit on lawsuits? For instance I was listening to this one manger at work. He was saying that if some dumba** shot and kill someone he can be some liable for it because he sold the gun to that person. The only way he can have a lawsuit against him if he made like a mistake when filling out the gun forms, such as not putting the right serial number down, or not spelling error, not recongizing a fake id, or fake ss card, and etc. Also once in awhile you hear about people filing lawsuit against the gun manufacture too because of someone death from a gun.

yeah for the limits on lawsuits id mean as in general.

Hence the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

In general though, yes, American judcial system has eroded to be complete and utter crap. It's not so much the fault of the litigious public, but the self-serving soulless lawyers, judges and congressional representatives. We don't need more laws to clean up bad laws, we need a working root system. Time to flush it and start over with SERIOUS protections in place to prevent this erosion from occuring again.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
should there be a limit on lawsuits? For instance I was listening to this one manger at work. He was saying that if some dumba** shot and kill someone he can be some liable for it because he sold the gun to that person. The only way he can have a lawsuit against him if he made like a mistake when filling out the gun forms, such as not putting the right serial number down, or not spelling error, not recongizing a fake id, or fake ss card, and etc. Also once in awhile you hear about people filing lawsuit against the gun manufacture too because of someone death from a gun.

yeah for the limits on lawsuits id mean as in general.

Discussions about lawsuits are difficult. They are necessary to keep people and corporations honest, but they can quickly get out of hand. I imagine this stems from the recent law passed by congress that gives gun manufacturers complete immunity from lawsuits for any reason, even if a defective weapon kills it's user.

While the immunity granted by congress is too much, a certain amount of oversight of lawyers is necessary. Some (not quite all) lawyers are willing to file a lawsuit over anything these days. There have been cases where someone is killed with a weapon and the manufacturer got sued. That is garbage.

 

[JEDIYoda]

YES!! Limits

 

[ntdz]

ABSOLUTELY lawsuits should be limited. One of the biggest contributors to high healthcare cost is medical insurance doctors have to take out so they don't lose everything if they get sued...

 

[irwincur]

Yes there need to be limits. Lawsuits are the primary reason why many products and services are so expensive. Drugs and medical services come to mind here. It is almost impossible to open a clinic today as a lone doctor. It costs billions to develop a drug and the margins are razer thin - out of control lawsuits increase risk which greatly decreases innovation in the field.

 

[RightIsWrong]

No there doesn't need to be a limit. There need to be controls put in place to deter frivilous suits however. I'm not quite sure how this could be implemented. Maybe fines against lawyers that are filing what are considered by an impartial review panel to be absolutely ridiculous suits?

Limiting awards then becomes a cost savings for big business where they will have their accountants computing which is greater....a recall or a judgement (which happened in the past in regards to the auto industry). Also, lawsuits are NOT what is driving the cost of healthcare through the roof, negligence by doctors (amputating the wrong limb for example) and the greed of the insurance industry is what is driving up the costs.

Edit: added NOT to correctly convey my opin.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Yes there need to be limits. Lawsuits are the primary reason why many products and services are so expensive. Drugs and medical services come to mind here. It is almost impossible to open a clinic today as a lone doctor. It costs billions to develop a drug and the margins are razer thin - out of control lawsuits increase risk which greatly decreases innovation in the field.

This is totally untrue, and a maddeningly common misconception. The increased costs of health care are primarily related to malpractice insurance and the increased cost of drugs (whose profit margins are not razor thin, but fatter than Star Jones - look at a Pfizer quarterly earnings report sometime). States that have imposed tort reforms limiting malpractice law suits have seen malpractice insurance premiums go down only very slightly (less than 3%).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Lawsuits are an important part of contract and negligence laws. Artificial limits are stupid because real damages should never be limited. 'Punitive damages' should, I think be treated with more discretion and reason, especially when insurance is involved, the idea of punitive damages becomes meaningless.

I don't see any reason gun manufacturers should have needed legislative protection. As long as thier product works as designed, I can't see higher courts letting a judgement stand, maybe one case would have to go to a higher court, or the supreme court, but I think it's quite obvious that hte gun seller, owner and operator bear responsibility for who had the gun, who had access to it, and what was done with it; the manufacturer isn't involved here, and new protection was unecessary. If on the other hand a defective weapon resulted in death, the manufacturer *should potentially be liable.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: morrisbj

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
should there be a limit on lawsuits? For instance I was listening to this one manger at work. He was saying that if some dumba** shot and kill someone he can be some liable for it because he sold the gun to that person. The only way he can have a lawsuit against him if he made like a mistake when filling out the gun forms, such as not putting the right serial number down, or not spelling error, not recongizing a fake id, or fake ss card, and etc. Also once in awhile you hear about people filing lawsuit against the gun manufacture too because of someone death from a gun.

yeah for the limits on lawsuits id mean as in general.

Discussions about lawsuits are difficult. They are necessary to keep people and corporations honest, but they can quickly get out of hand. I imagine this stems from the recent law passed by congress that gives gun manufacturers complete immunity from lawsuits for any reason, even if a defective weapon kills it's user.

While the immunity granted by congress is too much, a certain amount of oversight of lawyers is necessary. Some (not quite all) lawyers are willing to file a lawsuit over anything these days. There have been cases where someone is killed with a weapon and the manufacturer got sued. That is garbage.

Lawyers sueing over any thing and everything is the corportation faults who in their decided it would be cheaper to settle all lawsuits then to fight any them. And now it comes as a shock that they lawyers will sue over anything.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: irwincur
Yes there need to be limits. Lawsuits are the primary reason why many products and services are so expensive. Drugs and medical services come to mind here. It is almost impossible to open a clinic today as a lone doctor. It costs billions to develop a drug and the margins are razer thin - out of control lawsuits increase risk which greatly decreases innovation in the field.

This is totally untrue, and a maddeningly common misconception. The increased costs of health care are primarily related to malpractice insurance and the increased cost of drugs (whose profit margins are not razor thin, but fatter than Star Jones - look at a Pfizer quarterly earnings report sometime). States that have imposed tort reforms limiting malpractice law suits have seen malpractice insurance premiums go down only very slightly (less than 3%).

That's because once the insurance rates get up that high, the insurance companies aren't about to lower them and lose money. Besides, most insurance companies are national companies, so lowering rates in one state will have little effect nationally.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Lawsuits are an important part of contract and negligence laws. Artificial limits are stupid because real damages should never be limited. 'Punitive damages' should, I think be treated with more discretion and reason, especially when insurance is involved, the idea of punitive damages becomes meaningless.

Sums it up. If people accept limits to lawsuits then they might as well accept human oppression the likes that have been seen by previous generations. Its only the threat of lawsuits that keep most over-aggressive corporations in check.

 

[zendari]

There shouldnt be a serial number or ID check for buying a gun.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari
There shouldnt be a serial number or ID check for buying a gun.

Or for shooting someone with one?

What happened to personal responsibility?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
There shouldnt be a serial number or ID check for buying a gun.

Or for shooting someone with one?

What happened to personal responsibility?

Who said anything about shooting someone?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
There shouldnt be a serial number or ID check for buying a gun.

Or for shooting someone with one?

What happened to personal responsibility?

Who said anything about shooting someone?

If you make guns untraceable, you certainly make it easier to use one without getting caught. You also make it perfectly possible for anyone to obtain a gun legally, regardless of past, specific restrictions on their right to own a gun, or anything else.

You also make it much harder to trace where stolen or mishandled guns might have come from. If the right to own a gun for self defense is important, I think the need to be able to trace that gun in case it used for something other than self defence becomes pretty important, too.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No there doesn't need to be a limit. There need to be controls put in place to deter frivilous suits however. I'm not quite sure how this could be implemented. Maybe fines against lawyers that are filing what are considered by an impartial review panel to be absolutely ridiculous suits?

Limiting awards then becomes a cost savings for big business where they will have their accountants computing which is greater....a recall or a judgement (which happened in the past in regards to the auto industry). Also, lawsuits are NOT what is driving the cost of healthcare through the roof, negligence by doctors (amputating the wrong limb for example) and the greed of the insurance industry is what is driving up the costs.

Edit: added NOT to correctly convey my opin.

Yeah, the number of "jackpot" lawsuit verdicts is negligible. These states with caps on the damages that can be awarded to actual victims are only hurting their own people. The insurance industry has artificially increased prices for insurance, especially in medical arenas.

What needs to be limited is the ridiculous lawsuits where the person being sued couldn't possibly be at fault.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is totally untrue, and a maddeningly common misconception. The increased costs of health care are primarily related to malpractice insurance and the increased cost of drugs (whose profit margins are not razor thin, but fatter than Star Jones - look at a Pfizer quarterly earnings report sometime). States that have imposed tort reforms limiting malpractice law suits have seen malpractice insurance premiums go down only very slightly (less than 3%).

And even that 3% is just what the insurance industry is willing to drop prices to "prove" that lawsuits were the problem. Remember, all these tort reform bills are backed by the insurance companies... what do they care about doctors? They don't, they care about expanding their already ridiculous profit margins.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Lawyers sueing over any thing and everything is the corportation faults who in their decided it would be cheaper to settle all lawsuits then to fight any them. And now it comes as a shock that they lawyers will sue over anything.

Newsflash: Lawyers don't sue people. Lawyers represent the person who is suing someone.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: irwincur
Yes there need to be limits. Lawsuits are the primary reason why many products and services are so expensive. Drugs and medical services come to mind here. It is almost impossible to open a clinic today as a lone doctor. It costs billions to develop a drug and the margins are razer thin - out of control lawsuits increase risk which greatly decreases innovation in the field.

This is totally untrue, and a maddeningly common misconception. The increased costs of health care are primarily related to malpractice insurance and the increased cost of drugs (whose profit margins are not razor thin, but fatter than Star Jones - look at a Pfizer quarterly earnings report sometime). States that have imposed tort reforms limiting malpractice law suits have seen malpractice insurance premiums go down only very slightly (less than 3%).

That's because once the insurance rates get up that high, the insurance companies aren't about to lower them and lose money. Besides, most insurance companies are national companies, so lowering rates in one state will have little effect nationally.

not a big fan of economics are you?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
There shouldnt be a serial number or ID check for buying a gun.

Or for shooting someone with one?

What happened to personal responsibility?

Who said anything about shooting someone?

If you make guns untraceable, you certainly make it easier to use one without getting caught. You also make it perfectly possible for anyone to obtain a gun legally, regardless of past, specific restrictions on their right to own a gun, or anything else.

You also make it much harder to trace where stolen or mishandled guns might have come from. If the right to own a gun for self defense is important, I think the need to be able to trace that gun in case it used for something other than self defence becomes pretty important, too.

If criminals or whomever have rights the right to own a gun is one of them. Whether they have rights or not is a different issue. Liberal guncontrolfreaks have usurped one of our consitutional rights; its easier for a 12 year old girl to get an immedate abortion-on-demand no questions asked in this country than it is for a law abiding citizen to buy a gun.

Plenty of people misuse other freedoms in this country; doesn't mean that they have been or should be restricted.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: envy me

The reason they are filing lawsuits against the manufacturers is because the they have money, whereas the person pulling the trigger may not have money.

Bang on the money!