I think the $50 million part is what's frivolous. Such an award is preposterous; has he really endured $50 million worth of pain and suffering, or suffered $50 million worth of lost business?
The ostensible reason for tort reform is not to eliminate such cases completely, but to remove the incentive to use lawsuits as hammers against innocent people who will feel necessary to settle out of court because they can't possibly spend the money required to defend against a well-financed but bogus legal attack.
When doctors make bad but avoidable mistakes that kill or hurt people terribly, the victims of their mistakes should receive just compensation. People should be compensated for the costs medical mistakes inflict, but the Republican line is typically that excessive punitive damages against doctors and hospitals wind up costing us all more money.
There's also a different standard for public and private citizens in libel and defamation cases. As a pastor making public pronouncements in a state legislature, Dean stopped being a private citizen and became a public personality. Such people are responsible for their own notoriety, and the fallout that comes with that notoriety. It's not like Maddow picked him out of the phonebook at random for persecution, or nailed some obscure blogger for a ill-conceived rant: this guy was addressing a STATE LEGISLATURE, saying things he knew many people would find hateful.
Dean basically inflicted any criticism upon himself by opening his yap in such a public venue. Suing Rachel Maddow smacks of gold-digging and gaming the system for private and partisan gain, exactly the thing that Republicans claim to want to stop.
It would be interesting to find out who's really financing this whole lawsuit: it's hard to believe that Dean has the resources to pursue this thing himself.
Has Pastor Dean ever campaigned for tort reform? Are people who have campaigned for tort reform supporting this lawsuit? If not, then this post is nonsensical and and meaningless. Oh. Never mind, this is Markadoofius-Land, so that's to be expected.
Nope. Oh, good thing you had a link, because otherwise I wouldn't have had a fucking clue who/what you were obsessing about. Did you ever get around to comparing notes with Nikto after I introduced you?
Slander is defined as a false and defamatory spoken statement). The statement must be proven false, it must be proven that the statement caused harm, and it must be proven that the intent of the statement was to cause harm. In most lawsuits, these types of defamations (in this case, slander) are dealt with as a crime, not a tort. You fling around the term "tort reform" here and on facebook anytime someone on the right files a lawsuit, even when a tort or punitive damages aren’t even a part of the lawsuit. A breach of contract lawsuit is filed and Mark immediately yells "tort reform!".
A tort is an act that injures a person in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. The type of tort reform I want caps the amount of damages one can receive. Speaking for myself, I never said people can’t or shouldn’t bring slander lawsuits like this, I just don’t want these outrageous sums (like $50 million for this moron bringing this suit). This jackpot justice system we have is kept in place by trial lawyers, who outpaced unions in giving lots of money to "your side" to keep things the way they are. Seen all the billboards along the highways by lawyers telling injured people to call them? It's a profitable industry for them.
Since you used to be against “making shit up and passing it off as fact”, shouldn’t we let the courts decide this accusation of slander instead of trusting your limited knowledge of the legal system that apparently claims that anybody to the right of you should not file any lawsuit under any circumstances, on the basis of some idiotic hypocrisy clause that exists in your head? Slander is not automatically frivolous or hypocritical simply because you disagree with the person filing the lawsuit. The purpose of a tort is to provide full compensation for proven harm. In this situation, it could come in the form of loss of income, emotional pain and suffering (barf), or loss of future income. He should not get $50 million but slander is still taken very seriously, even if you disagree with a persons politics.
In most lawsuits, these types of defamations (in this case, slander) are dealt with as a crime, not a tort.
I think you got that backwards: "Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm."
Britain is where this was a criminal offense as well as a tort. Our judicial approach is much more demanding (of the aggrieved) than the English standard.
Aside from that, I agree completely and you absolutely nailed the standard in M's head.
I'm so sorry last - no, you weren't wrong, you were just sorta right in a completely different way. Everyone is right, and everyone gets a trophy! And pizza, shall we all go get some pizza?
9 comments:
Key word: frivolous
Telling lies about someone is not "frivolous".
I think the $50 million part is what's frivolous. Such an award is preposterous; has he really endured $50 million worth of pain and suffering, or suffered $50 million worth of lost business?
The ostensible reason for tort reform is not to eliminate such cases completely, but to remove the incentive to use lawsuits as hammers against innocent people who will feel necessary to settle out of court because they can't possibly spend the money required to defend against a well-financed but bogus legal attack.
When doctors make bad but avoidable mistakes that kill or hurt people terribly, the victims of their mistakes should receive just compensation. People should be compensated for the costs medical mistakes inflict, but the Republican line is typically that excessive punitive damages against doctors and hospitals wind up costing us all more money.
There's also a different standard for public and private citizens in libel and defamation cases. As a pastor making public pronouncements in a state legislature, Dean stopped being a private citizen and became a public personality. Such people are responsible for their own notoriety, and the fallout that comes with that notoriety. It's not like Maddow picked him out of the phonebook at random for persecution, or nailed some obscure blogger for a ill-conceived rant: this guy was addressing a STATE LEGISLATURE, saying things he knew many people would find hateful.
Dean basically inflicted any criticism upon himself by opening his yap in such a public venue. Suing Rachel Maddow smacks of gold-digging and gaming the system for private and partisan gain, exactly the thing that Republicans claim to want to stop.
It would be interesting to find out who's really financing this whole lawsuit: it's hard to believe that Dean has the resources to pursue this thing himself.
Has Pastor Dean ever campaigned for tort reform? Are people who have campaigned for tort reform supporting this lawsuit? If not, then this post is nonsensical and and meaningless. Oh. Never mind, this is Markadoofius-Land, so that's to be expected.
Remember Bradlee Dean?
Nope. Oh, good thing you had a link, because otherwise I wouldn't have had a fucking clue who/what you were obsessing about. Did you ever get around to comparing notes with Nikto after I introduced you?
Slander is defined as a false and defamatory spoken statement). The statement must be proven false, it must be proven that the statement caused harm, and it must be proven that the intent of the statement was to cause harm. In most lawsuits, these types of defamations (in this case, slander) are dealt with as a crime, not a tort. You fling around the term "tort reform" here and on facebook anytime someone on the right files a lawsuit, even when a tort or punitive damages aren’t even a part of the lawsuit. A breach of contract lawsuit is filed and Mark immediately yells "tort reform!".
A tort is an act that injures a person in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. The type of tort reform I want caps the amount of damages one can receive. Speaking for myself, I never said people can’t or shouldn’t bring slander lawsuits like this, I just don’t want these outrageous sums (like $50 million for this moron bringing this suit). This jackpot justice system we have is kept in place by trial lawyers, who outpaced unions in giving lots of money to "your side" to keep things the way they are. Seen all the billboards along the highways by lawyers telling injured people to call them? It's a profitable industry for them.
Since you used to be against “making shit up and passing it off as fact”, shouldn’t we let the courts decide this accusation of slander instead of trusting your limited knowledge of the legal system that apparently claims that anybody to the right of you should not file any lawsuit under any circumstances, on the basis of some idiotic hypocrisy clause that exists in your head? Slander is not automatically frivolous or hypocritical simply because you disagree with the person filing the lawsuit. The purpose of a tort is to provide full compensation for proven harm. In this situation, it could come in the form of loss of income, emotional pain and suffering (barf), or loss of future income. He should not get $50 million but slander is still taken very seriously, even if you disagree with a persons politics.
Well said, last. Well said…
:::applause:::
In most lawsuits, these types of defamations (in this case, slander) are dealt with as a crime, not a tort.
I think you got that backwards: "Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm."
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Britain is where this was a criminal offense as well as a tort. Our judicial approach is much more demanding (of the aggrieved) than the English standard.
Aside from that, I agree completely and you absolutely nailed the standard in M's head.
You're just trying to prove me wrong Mr. Juris and it hurts my feelings!
I'm so sorry last - no, you weren't wrong, you were just sorta right in a completely different way. Everyone is right, and everyone gets a trophy! And pizza, shall we all go get some pizza?
Post a Comment