Personal responsibility, federalism, and fast food

[Bodhisattva]

Share
 

	Quote:
	Last month, the House passed a bill that would protect the food industry from obesity lawsuits. Makers of vaccines, guns and small planes already have special protections. But that kind of partial solution is a bad idea. It prevents one injustice by enacting another: It would give the fast-food industry an exception to the laws that govern other businesses with less political clout. We should all be equal under the law. The legal system should be reformed so people bear the consequences of their own bad choices. The best solution would be to make people who file baseless lawsuits pay the costs of defending against them. "Loser pays," that system is called, and that's the way it works in most of the civilized world. America's tort lawyers cleverly call loser-pays the "the English Rule," as if it's an odd British idea. It's not. It's the "Rest-of-the-World Rule." Only America suffers under the bizarre "American Rule," which allows lawyers to sue again and again, while forcing others to pay. Loser-pays would bring some justice to their victims.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...23/176558.html

[bobstod]

Bodhi, I agree that something needs to be done on this front. Our civil legal system is a self-perpetuating money-pit with lawyers being the only winners.

I'm not sure I wouldn't modify the "loser pays" rule to some small extent, in order to protect a poor person who had a good case but lost a close verdict, though. Maybe make it 'loser pays' except in cases where the jury specifically dictates otherwise.

Failing that, though, I think a strict 'loser pays' system is better than what we have now.