I fully support a "loser pays" system for civil trials in the U.S. Do agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Question

It is too easy to get to court on cases that have no legal merit. For example, the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee on herself. Would she have sued if she was faced with paying all of her legal fees PLUS all of McDonalds legal fees if she lost?

vanessa, I am 55.

Answer 1

I also believe loser should pay. Not just in civil but family as well. Divorce, child custody, all of it. The McD's case is excellent as far as frivolous lawsuits go and asker makes valid point. Large amounts of money LOST would make those ppl think twice. In fact, any loser in court should have to pay. Because if their case was true and valid they would not have lost. No matter the intentions.

Answer 2

The presiding judge should make the call on the loser paying though. Just in case the case has merit and isn't just frivolous.
If someone tries suing Pfizer for there newest medication giving them a heart attack but Pfizer's lawyers are just too good etc.
I do believe though that in a small claims cases that the loser should have to face perjury charges though. You see a lot of people lying to make a quick buck.

Answer 3

I think a "loser pays" system would help the current situation, but there are still plenty of rich lawyers that would be willing to take the risk to get the payoff.

I think a better system would be a system in which there can be no civil trial unless the plaintiff is found guilty in a criminal trial. That way, greedy scum bags could never sue at all, unless the plaintiff was found guilty of some kind of criminal action. After all, if the plaintiff didn't commit a crime, why should they be punished?

Answer 4

i don't be responsive to approximately misused with the aid of fact you will get your answer appealed if this is been wrongly stated, yet their rules are stressful to maintain on with. Any question could nicely be seen "chatting".

Answer 5

how old are you?