Interestingly, Pi-r8, one good way to reduce the number of lawsuits would be to have a single-payer system and generous sick leave protection. If people don't have to sue for medical bills and lost wages/earning capacity they won't. Try THAT one on conservative 'tort reformers', though.
Along with that, wouldn't you need some sort of mechanism to tie the health care costs back to the offending corporation? So McDonalds makes crazy-hot coffee, a bunch of people get searing crotch-burns, they all get their free health care to take care of it, nobody ever sues, and McDonalds has no incentive to stop serving the crazy-hot coffee.
Would you just hope that someone sued for pain and suffering? Would you let the government sue McDonalds on behalf of the victims?
Actually, if there was single payer, or even public option, I would vociferously support allowing the government health care plan to sue for damages due to faulty product.
Still allowing normal people to sue for pain and suffering, of course.
Interestingly, Pi-r8, one good way to reduce the number of lawsuits would be to have a single-payer system and generous sick leave protection. If people don't have to sue for medical bills and lost wages/earning capacity they won't. Try THAT one on conservative 'tort reformers', though.
Along with that, wouldn't you need some sort of mechanism to tie the health care costs back to the offending corporation? So McDonalds makes crazy-hot coffee, a bunch of people get searing crotch-burns, they all get their free health care to take care of it, nobody ever sues, and McDonalds has no incentive to stop serving the crazy-hot coffee.
Would you just hope that someone sued for pain and suffering? Would you let the government sue McDonalds on behalf of the victims?
Actually, if there was single payer, or even public option, I would vociferously support allowing the government health care plan to sue for damages due to faulty product.
Still allowing normal people to sue for pain and suffering, of course.
This is basically how car insurance works right now, isnt it? You pay your car insurance, if something happens to you, they figure out who to go after based on the evidence. You can still sue for pain and suffering, etc.
Interestingly, Pi-r8, one good way to reduce the number of lawsuits would be to have a single-payer system and generous sick leave protection. If people don't have to sue for medical bills and lost wages/earning capacity they won't. Try THAT one on conservative 'tort reformers', though.
Along with that, wouldn't you need some sort of mechanism to tie the health care costs back to the offending corporation? So McDonalds makes crazy-hot coffee, a bunch of people get searing crotch-burns, they all get their free health care to take care of it, nobody ever sues, and McDonalds has no incentive to stop serving the crazy-hot coffee.
Would you just hope that someone sued for pain and suffering? Would you let the government sue McDonalds on behalf of the victims?
Actually, if there was single payer, or even public option, I would vociferously support allowing the government health care plan to sue for damages due to faulty product.
Still allowing normal people to sue for pain and suffering, of course.
This is basically how car insurance works right now, isnt it? You pay your car insurance, if something happens to you, they figure out who to go after based on the evidence. You can still sue for pain and suffering, etc.
Pretty much. In fact, a lot of tort cases we read in class seem odd at first, because it's always a friend suing a friend for damages, until the teacher pointed out that it's always the insurance company suing the other insurance company but the case is just listed under the names of the individuals.
Have you read the case about the 4 year old getting sued by his old lady family friend/neighbor?
Yes. Its because the kid's parents are exploiting a loophole in the law.
Maybe we're not talking about the same case, but then again all I remember is the kid pulling the chair out from under the old lady who then fell and broke her hip, and the court saying its totally cool to sue children but you need to show that they intended to hurt the plaintiff or that a reasonable child of their age would know of the repercussions. And then the court found that a 5 year old wouldnt know that moving a chair could break someones hip.
Have you read the case about the 4 year old getting sued by his old lady family friend/neighbor?
Yes. Its because the kid's parents are exploiting a loophole in the law.
Maybe we're not talking about the same case, but then again all I remember is the kid pulling the chair out from under the old lady who then fell and broke her hip, and the court saying its totally cool to sue children but you need to show that they intended to hurt the plaintiff or that a reasonable child of their age would know of the repercussions. And then the court found that a 5 year old wouldnt know that moving a chair could break someones hip.
Wasn't it running someone down with a bike rather than pulling a chair out, and he had been told not to before. Or was that the other case? I'm pretty sure the loophole one was them suing their grandparents for incorrectly using a child seat in order to generate a right for the grandparents to sue the manufacturers.
Have you read the case about the 4 year old getting sued by his old lady family friend/neighbor?
Yes. Its because the kid's parents are exploiting a loophole in the law.
Maybe we're not talking about the same case, but then again all I remember is the kid pulling the chair out from under the old lady who then fell and broke her hip, and the court saying its totally cool to sue children but you need to show that they intended to hurt the plaintiff or that a reasonable child of their age would know of the repercussions. And then the court found that a 5 year old wouldnt know that moving a chair could break someones hip.
Wasn't it running someone down with a bike rather than pulling a chair out, and he had been told not to before. Or was that the other case? I'm pretty sure the loophole one was them suing their grandparents for incorrectly using a child seat in order to generate a right for the grandparents to sue the manufacturers.
Yeah, we're all talking about different cases. Jesus, 4 year olds get sued a lot.
Have you read the case about the 4 year old getting sued by his old lady family friend/neighbor?
Yes. Its because the kid's parents are exploiting a loophole in the law.
Maybe we're not talking about the same case, but then again all I remember is the kid pulling the chair out from under the old lady who then fell and broke her hip, and the court saying its totally cool to sue children but you need to show that they intended to hurt the plaintiff or that a reasonable child of their age would know of the repercussions. And then the court found that a 5 year old wouldnt know that moving a chair could break someones hip.
Wasn't it running someone down with a bike rather than pulling a chair out, and he had been told not to before. Or was that the other case? I'm pretty sure the loophole one was them suing their grandparents for incorrectly using a child seat in order to generate a right for the grandparents to sue the manufacturers.
Yeah, we're all talking about different cases. Jesus, 4 year olds get sued a lot.
Yeah, I was thinking of the bike case (the parents basically used proximate cause as an incredibly weaselly dodge.)
Anyway, Cracked had a good takedown on frivoulous lawsuit myths. Of course, Stella's the first example.
Along with that, wouldn't you need some sort of mechanism to tie the health care costs back to the offending corporation?
Yup. Most of those commie-librul countries also have crazy regulations on companies. You could also simply give the government very strong powers to turn around and get the money back from McDonalds - much like the way insurance subrogation works now. (That is, say I accidentally burn your house down. If you make an insurance claim, your insurance company will pay you and then turn around and sue my ass to get its money back.)
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
So the PSN debacle has lead me to this thread because there's a ton of talk about Class-Action Suits, and someone dropped this bomb on us that the court decided to put a big ol' knife in it. Which is weird because just a week or so ago I got a notice in the mail from a former employer about taking part in a class-action or not.
So the PSN debacle has lead me to this thread because there's a ton of talk about Class-Action Suits, and someone dropped this bomb on us that the court decided to put a big ol' knife in it. Which is weird because just a week or so ago I got a notice in the mail from a former employer about taking part in a class-action or not.
Yea, that's because before this Wednesday morning you had one more right than you do now.
So the PSN debacle has lead me to this thread because there's a ton of talk about Class-Action Suits, and someone dropped this bomb on us that the court decided to put a big ol' knife in it. Which is weird because just a week or so ago I got a notice in the mail from a former employer about taking part in a class-action or not.
Yea, that's because before this Wednesday morning you had one more right than you do now.
Pretty good timing for Sony all in all.
The shit that kills me in all this is the decision was classically partisan. And my God, Republicans are on TV every day talk about how they're losing in America, and thus, America is losing, but then they're getting victories like this that fuck America over.
The class-action lawsuit is not suddenly dead. There are a number of situations where companies can take pre-emptive measures to block class-action lawsuits, which is going to make class-action lawsuits much harder in the future, but this only applies to those specific situations. So yes, this is a big deal and bad for consumers, but it's not as bad as many are making out.
And this doesn't affect the Sony situation, because the Sony PSN EULA doesn't have a binding arbitration clause.
So I just read the title of this thread and its totally wrong. This case has nothing to do with actual class action lawsuits and only applies to class action binding arbitration.
And this doesn't affect the Sony situation, because the Sony PSN EULA doesn't have a binding arbitration clause.
Right, people have to sign away their right and agree to arbitration. But how many companies are gonna try that shit now, making people sign away their right?
Remember, Republicans voted against Al Franken's law about bypassing arbitration in cases of rape and abuse by employers. This is no surprise.
Also, funny thing is, the company that sent me my class-action papers is actually really open about their arbitration policies, when they train new employees. Maybe the company is just more honest in many ways.
Why don't they have an arbitration clause? Probably because arbitration makes sense for when you have a large number of disputes for small amounts, and that's not an expected aspect of PSN. Sony don't expect to be sued so much as to sue you.
Why don't they have an arbitration clause? Probably because arbitration makes sense for when you have a large number of disputes for small amounts, and that's not an expected aspect of PSN. Sony don't expect to be sued so much as to sue you.
And theyd rather sue you in court than go through arbitration.
The class-action lawsuit is not suddenly dead. There are a number of situations where companies can take pre-emptive measures to block class-action lawsuits, which is going to make class-action lawsuits much harder in the future, but this only applies to those specific situations. So yes, this is a big deal and bad for consumers, but it's not as bad as many are making out.
And this doesn't affect the Sony situation, because the Sony PSN EULA doesn't have a binding arbitration clause.
What is preventing Sony from adding that clause to a new EULA that you have to sign when the network comes back up?
The class-action lawsuit is not suddenly dead. There are a number of situations where companies can take pre-emptive measures to block class-action lawsuits, which is going to make class-action lawsuits much harder in the future, but this only applies to those specific situations. So yes, this is a big deal and bad for consumers, but it's not as bad as many are making out.
And this doesn't affect the Sony situation, because the Sony PSN EULA doesn't have a binding arbitration clause.
What is preventing Sony from adding that clause to a new EULA that you have to sign when the network comes back up?
Yeah, if Blizzard can update their EULA and TOS every time they update WoW, Sony can certainly update their own EULA whenever they feel.
I mean, I understand we're arguing a slippery slope here, but it has a lot to do with my pessimism.
The class-action lawsuit is not suddenly dead. There are a number of situations where companies can take pre-emptive measures to block class-action lawsuits, which is going to make class-action lawsuits much harder in the future, but this only applies to those specific situations. So yes, this is a big deal and bad for consumers, but it's not as bad as many are making out.
And this doesn't affect the Sony situation, because the Sony PSN EULA doesn't have a binding arbitration clause.
What is preventing Sony from adding that clause to a new EULA that you have to sign when the network comes back up?
Nothing, but it's the contract that was in place when the event occurs that applies.
So I just read the title of this thread and its totally wrong. This case has nothing to do with actual class action lawsuits and only applies to class action binding arbitration.
Maybe you should read the rest of the OP? Or the decision? Maybe even just the first paragraph of the decision?
The cellular telephone contract between respondents (Concepcions) and
petitioner (AT&T) provided for arbitration of all disputes, but did not
permit classwide arbitration. After the Concepcions were charged
sales tax on the retail value of phones provided free under their service contract, they sued AT&T in a California Federal District Court.
Their suit was consolidated with a class action alleging, inter alia,
that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging
sales tax on “free” phones. The District Court denied AT&T’s motion
to compel arbitration under the Concepcions’ contract. Relying on
the California Supreme Court’s Discover Bank decision, it found the
arbitration provision unconscionable because it disallowed classwide
proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was unconscionable under California law and held that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable,
and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2, did not preempt its
ruling.
That's what was overturned. If there is a MBA clause, it's now impossible to initiate a class action lawsuit.
So I just read the title of this thread and its totally wrong. This case has nothing to do with actual class action lawsuits and only applies to class action binding arbitration.
Maybe you should read the rest of the OP? Or the decision? Maybe even just the first paragraph of the decision?
The cellular telephone contract between respondents (Concepcions) and
petitioner (AT&T) provided for arbitration of all disputes, but did not
permit classwide arbitration. After the Concepcions were charged
sales tax on the retail value of phones provided free under their service contract, they sued AT&T in a California Federal District Court.
Their suit was consolidated with a class action alleging, inter alia,
that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging
sales tax on “free” phones. The District Court denied AT&T’s motion
to compel arbitration under the Concepcions’ contract. Relying on
the California Supreme Court’s Discover Bank decision, it found the
arbitration provision unconscionable because it disallowed classwide
proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was unconscionable under California law and held that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable,
and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2, did not preempt its
ruling.
That's what was overturned. If there is a MBA clause, it's now impossible to initiate a class action lawsuit.
Again, preventing class actions in the realm of mandatory binding arbitration is not the same thing as banning class action litigation. Does this make it much more difficult to get a class action lawsuit going? Yes, but only for claims arising out of contracts with mandatory binding arbitration agreements.
And again, just because theres an arbitration clause doesnt mean you cant get to court, you just need to arbitrate whether the arbitration clause is enforceable, except now you cant claim that the agreement is unenforceable because it bans class arbitration. If its not, feel free to try a class action.
So I just read the title of this thread and its totally wrong. This case has nothing to do with actual class action lawsuits and only applies to class action binding arbitration.
Maybe you should read the rest of the OP? Or the decision? Maybe even just the first paragraph of the decision?
The cellular telephone contract between respondents (Concepcions) and
petitioner (AT&T) provided for arbitration of all disputes, but did not
permit classwide arbitration. After the Concepcions were charged
sales tax on the retail value of phones provided free under their service contract, they sued AT&T in a California Federal District Court.
Their suit was consolidated with a class action alleging, inter alia,
that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging
sales tax on “free” phones. The District Court denied AT&T’s motion
to compel arbitration under the Concepcions’ contract. Relying on
the California Supreme Court’s Discover Bank decision, it found the
arbitration provision unconscionable because it disallowed classwide
proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was unconscionable under California law and held that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable,
and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2, did not preempt its
ruling.
That's what was overturned. If there is a MBA clause, it's now impossible to initiate a class action lawsuit.
Again, preventing class actions in the realm of mandatory binding arbitration is not the same thing as banning class action litigation. Does this make it much more difficult to get a class action lawsuit going? Yes, but only for claims arising out of contracts with mandatory binding arbitration agreements.
And again, just because theres an arbitration clause doesnt mean you cant get to court, you just need to arbitrate whether the arbitration clause is enforceable, except now you cant claim that the agreement is unenforceable because it bans class arbitration. If its not, feel free to try a class action.
No see, it does not make bringing class action lawsuits arising out of a contract with MBA more difficult. It effectively guts them entirely if precedent is being upheld and the MBA clause does not violate state or federal law.
So all companies have to do to prevent class action lawsuits is to include MBA clauses in every contract that do not violate the law in individual cases, and make those contracts necessary to access products, services or employment. If a class action suit is brought up, they have to prove that MBA is legal in the individual cases and can then shift it to arbitration.
Because the arbitration is "impossible" in a class action suit the company can the require each plaintiff to engage in arbitration individually.
While this will not prevent illegal misleading advertising or industrial waste dumping suits, product liability and other activities commonly covered by contracts will effectively be ended as class actions.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
So I just read the title of this thread and its totally wrong. This case has nothing to do with actual class action lawsuits and only applies to class action binding arbitration.
Maybe you should read the rest of the OP? Or the decision? Maybe even just the first paragraph of the decision?
The cellular telephone contract between respondents (Concepcions) and
petitioner (AT&T) provided for arbitration of all disputes, but did not
permit classwide arbitration. After the Concepcions were charged
sales tax on the retail value of phones provided free under their service contract, they sued AT&T in a California Federal District Court.
Their suit was consolidated with a class action alleging, inter alia,
that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging
sales tax on “free” phones. The District Court denied AT&T’s motion
to compel arbitration under the Concepcions’ contract. Relying on
the California Supreme Court’s Discover Bank decision, it found the
arbitration provision unconscionable because it disallowed classwide
proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was unconscionable under California law and held that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable,
and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2, did not preempt its
ruling.
That's what was overturned. If there is a MBA clause, it's now impossible to initiate a class action lawsuit.
Again, preventing class actions in the realm of mandatory binding arbitration is not the same thing as banning class action litigation. Does this make it much more difficult to get a class action lawsuit going? Yes, but only for claims arising out of contracts with mandatory binding arbitration agreements.
And again, just because theres an arbitration clause doesnt mean you cant get to court, you just need to arbitrate whether the arbitration clause is enforceable, except now you cant claim that the agreement is unenforceable because it bans class arbitration. If its not, feel free to try a class action.
No see, it does not make bringing class action lawsuits arising out of a contract with MBA more difficult. It effectively guts them entirely if precedent is being upheld and the MBA clause does not violate state or federal law.
So all companies have to do to prevent class action lawsuits is to include MBA clauses in every contract that do not violate the law in individual cases, and make those contracts necessary to access products, services or employment. If a class action suit is brought up, they have to prove that MBA is legal in the individual cases and can then shift it to arbitration.
Because the arbitration is "impossible" in a class action suit the company can the require each plaintiff to engage in arbitration individually.
While this will not prevent illegal misleading advertising or industrial waste dumping suits, product liability and other activities commonly covered by contracts will effectively be ended as class actions.
I don't understand how this is a bad thing. The only people that make money off class action lawsuits are the lawyers anyway.
So, in other words, you don't understand the purpose of class action lawsuits. The point is to allow people who were barked to a small degree to seek justice in a reasonable manner.
I don't understand how this is a bad thing. The only people that make money off class action lawsuits are the lawyers anyway.
So, in other words, you don't understand the purpose of class action lawsuits. The point is to allow people who were barked to a small degree to seek justice in a reasonable manner.
Apparently he believes that
1) if you lose $10 from a company's bad behavior, you should get millions of dollars for that, and
2) unlike him, lawyers should not be able to make money.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I don't understand how this is a bad thing. The only people that make money off class action lawsuits are the lawyers anyway.
So, in other words, you don't understand the purpose of class action lawsuits. The point is to allow people who were barked to a small degree to seek justice in a reasonable manner.
Apparently he believes that
1) if you lose $10 from a company's bad behavior, you should get millions of dollars for that, and
2) unlike him, lawyers should not be able to make money.
The thing is that the contingency fee system is one of the key points in excluding actual frivolous lawsuits from the courts.
I don't understand how this is a bad thing. The only people that make money off class action lawsuits are the lawyers anyway.
Class actions arent about restitution for the class, its about punishing the offender.
EDIT: And the only reason it appears lawyers make a fuckton of money off these cases is well, because they do, but its only after taking on an incredible risk. They work for years without payment on a case that in all likelihood is incredibly expensive, in the hopes that they will win the case, or at least settle.
Has anyone noted that arbiters that find for the consumer are often completely ignored in favor of arbiters that find for companies? That arbiters paid for by a company that do not find in favor of that company get black listed?
That real world statistics put arbitration in favor of the company at something like 90%?
That arbitration results are often out of proportion with the level of abuse by companies?
For example, BP went into arbitration for the Gulf oil spill. BP has violated arbitration and are withholding payments to strong arm residents into accepting much lower pay outs. Thank God for Jim Hood, Mississippi's DA, getting involved and bringing down the hammer. Now that we can't legally file a class action lawsuit, many Mississippians would be royally fucked had Jim Hood sided with BP like Barbour.
As it stands with AT&T, if you enter arbitration, get screwed (as the percentile suggests), you'd have to sue them as an individual for any recourse. Otherwise, if you don't have the huge amount of time or money, you're SOL.
There are problems with arbitration as it currently exists, but those are best solved by fixing arbitration. At the very least, something that is used as a mandatory binding alternative to the court system needs to be regulated to the extent that it is fair, and seen to be fair by the general public.
This is something which, no doubt, arbitrators will be wholeheartedly against. Partly because it's a lot more work for them; mostly because companies will have much less incentive to use binding arbitration clauses in their contracts.
So I just read the title of this thread and its totally wrong. This case has nothing to do with actual class action lawsuits and only applies to class action binding arbitration.
Maybe you should read the rest of the OP? Or the decision? Maybe even just the first paragraph of the decision?
The cellular telephone contract between respondents (Concepcions) and
petitioner (AT&T) provided for arbitration of all disputes, but did not
permit classwide arbitration. After the Concepcions were charged
sales tax on the retail value of phones provided free under their service contract, they sued AT&T in a California Federal District Court.
Their suit was consolidated with a class action alleging, inter alia,
that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging
sales tax on “free” phones. The District Court denied AT&T’s motion
to compel arbitration under the Concepcions’ contract. Relying on
the California Supreme Court’s Discover Bank decision, it found the
arbitration provision unconscionable because it disallowed classwide
proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was unconscionable under California law and held that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable,
and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2, did not preempt its
ruling.
That's what was overturned. If there is a MBA clause, it's now impossible to initiate a class action lawsuit.
Again, preventing class actions in the realm of mandatory binding arbitration is not the same thing as banning class action litigation. Does this make it much more difficult to get a class action lawsuit going? Yes, but only for claims arising out of contracts with mandatory binding arbitration agreements.
And again, just because theres an arbitration clause doesnt mean you cant get to court, you just need to arbitrate whether the arbitration clause is enforceable, except now you cant claim that the agreement is unenforceable because it bans class arbitration. If its not, feel free to try a class action.
No see, it does not make bringing class action lawsuits arising out of a contract with MBA more difficult. It effectively guts them entirely if precedent is being upheld and the MBA clause does not violate state or federal law.
So all companies have to do to prevent class action lawsuits is to include MBA clauses in every contract that do not violate the law in individual cases, and make those contracts necessary to access products, services or employment. If a class action suit is brought up, they have to prove that MBA is legal in the individual cases and can then shift it to arbitration.
Because the arbitration is "impossible" in a class action suit the company can the require each plaintiff to engage in arbitration individually.
While this will not prevent illegal misleading advertising or industrial waste dumping suits, product liability and other activities commonly covered by contracts will effectively be ended as class actions.
Would you settle for nearly impossible?
Im not refuting that its going to be much harder to get a class action going in products liability cases, Im just saying its not impossible. In states like California where they are now requiring arbitrators to keep records of why they reached their decision it may be possible for one arbitration to have an effect on all other arbitrations under that agreement (so if one arbitrator finds the arbitration agreement is void, that plaintiff can then have their day in court and possibly that arbitration record could be used to void the arbitration proceedings for others under the same contract).
Basically, I think we're arguing about two different things - I simply have issue with the word impossible, because consumer class actions arent impossible. Even those subject to arbitration agreements arent impossible, theyre just highly unlikely (nearly impossible) because the Supreme Court has seen fit to include an additional hurdle to getting a class certified.
Fixing arbitration would be the best route, but this decision does nothing towards that. Truly independent arbiters would require government oversight and since that's the Anti Christ to big business we won't see happen.
Fixing arbitration would be the best route, but this decision does nothing towards that. Truly independent arbiters would require government oversight and since that's the Anti Christ to big business we won't see happen.
This decision increases the need to fix arbitration, but we are unlikely to see that because 1) this congress hates doing decent things, and 2) congress is owned by corporations and they on the whole like forcing consumers into arbitration.
Posts
Actually, if there was single payer, or even public option, I would vociferously support allowing the government health care plan to sue for damages due to faulty product.
Still allowing normal people to sue for pain and suffering, of course.
This is basically how car insurance works right now, isnt it? You pay your car insurance, if something happens to you, they figure out who to go after based on the evidence. You can still sue for pain and suffering, etc.
Pretty much. In fact, a lot of tort cases we read in class seem odd at first, because it's always a friend suing a friend for damages, until the teacher pointed out that it's always the insurance company suing the other insurance company but the case is just listed under the names of the individuals.
Yes. Its because the kid's parents are exploiting a loophole in the law.
Maybe we're not talking about the same case, but then again all I remember is the kid pulling the chair out from under the old lady who then fell and broke her hip, and the court saying its totally cool to sue children but you need to show that they intended to hurt the plaintiff or that a reasonable child of their age would know of the repercussions. And then the court found that a 5 year old wouldnt know that moving a chair could break someones hip.
Wasn't it running someone down with a bike rather than pulling a chair out, and he had been told not to before. Or was that the other case? I'm pretty sure the loophole one was them suing their grandparents for incorrectly using a child seat in order to generate a right for the grandparents to sue the manufacturers.
Yeah, we're all talking about different cases. Jesus, 4 year olds get sued a lot.
Yeah, I was thinking of the bike case (the parents basically used proximate cause as an incredibly weaselly dodge.)
Anyway, Cracked had a good takedown on frivoulous lawsuit myths. Of course, Stella's the first example.
Yup. Most of those commie-librul countries also have crazy regulations on companies. You could also simply give the government very strong powers to turn around and get the money back from McDonalds - much like the way insurance subrogation works now. (That is, say I accidentally burn your house down. If you make an insurance claim, your insurance company will pay you and then turn around and sue my ass to get its money back.)
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yea, that's because before this Wednesday morning you had one more right than you do now.
Pretty good timing for Sony all in all.
The shit that kills me in all this is the decision was classically partisan. And my God, Republicans are on TV every day talk about how they're losing in America, and thus, America is losing, but then they're getting victories like this that fuck America over.
And this doesn't affect the Sony situation, because the Sony PSN EULA doesn't have a binding arbitration clause.
Why the hell not?
Right, people have to sign away their right and agree to arbitration. But how many companies are gonna try that shit now, making people sign away their right?
Remember, Republicans voted against Al Franken's law about bypassing arbitration in cases of rape and abuse by employers. This is no surprise.
Also, funny thing is, the company that sent me my class-action papers is actually really open about their arbitration policies, when they train new employees. Maybe the company is just more honest in many ways.
And theyd rather sue you in court than go through arbitration.
What is preventing Sony from adding that clause to a new EULA that you have to sign when the network comes back up?
Yeah, if Blizzard can update their EULA and TOS every time they update WoW, Sony can certainly update their own EULA whenever they feel.
I mean, I understand we're arguing a slippery slope here, but it has a lot to do with my pessimism.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Although it may include a provision that states that Sony isnt liable for any lost or stolen private information.
Maybe you should read the rest of the OP? Or the decision? Maybe even just the first paragraph of the decision?
That's what was overturned. If there is a MBA clause, it's now impossible to initiate a class action lawsuit.
Again, preventing class actions in the realm of mandatory binding arbitration is not the same thing as banning class action litigation. Does this make it much more difficult to get a class action lawsuit going? Yes, but only for claims arising out of contracts with mandatory binding arbitration agreements.
And again, just because theres an arbitration clause doesnt mean you cant get to court, you just need to arbitrate whether the arbitration clause is enforceable, except now you cant claim that the agreement is unenforceable because it bans class arbitration. If its not, feel free to try a class action.
No see, it does not make bringing class action lawsuits arising out of a contract with MBA more difficult. It effectively guts them entirely if precedent is being upheld and the MBA clause does not violate state or federal law.
So all companies have to do to prevent class action lawsuits is to include MBA clauses in every contract that do not violate the law in individual cases, and make those contracts necessary to access products, services or employment. If a class action suit is brought up, they have to prove that MBA is legal in the individual cases and can then shift it to arbitration.
Because the arbitration is "impossible" in a class action suit the company can the require each plaintiff to engage in arbitration individually.
While this will not prevent illegal misleading advertising or industrial waste dumping suits, product liability and other activities commonly covered by contracts will effectively be ended as class actions.
Perfectly put.
So, in other words, you don't understand the purpose of class action lawsuits. The point is to allow people who were barked to a small degree to seek justice in a reasonable manner.
Apparently he believes that
1) if you lose $10 from a company's bad behavior, you should get millions of dollars for that, and
2) unlike him, lawyers should not be able to make money.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The thing is that the contingency fee system is one of the key points in excluding actual frivolous lawsuits from the courts.
Class actions arent about restitution for the class, its about punishing the offender.
EDIT: And the only reason it appears lawyers make a fuckton of money off these cases is well, because they do, but its only after taking on an incredible risk. They work for years without payment on a case that in all likelihood is incredibly expensive, in the hopes that they will win the case, or at least settle.
That real world statistics put arbitration in favor of the company at something like 90%?
That arbitration results are often out of proportion with the level of abuse by companies?
For example, BP went into arbitration for the Gulf oil spill. BP has violated arbitration and are withholding payments to strong arm residents into accepting much lower pay outs. Thank God for Jim Hood, Mississippi's DA, getting involved and bringing down the hammer. Now that we can't legally file a class action lawsuit, many Mississippians would be royally fucked had Jim Hood sided with BP like Barbour.
As it stands with AT&T, if you enter arbitration, get screwed (as the percentile suggests), you'd have to sue them as an individual for any recourse. Otherwise, if you don't have the huge amount of time or money, you're SOL.
This is something which, no doubt, arbitrators will be wholeheartedly against. Partly because it's a lot more work for them; mostly because companies will have much less incentive to use binding arbitration clauses in their contracts.
Would you settle for nearly impossible?
Im not refuting that its going to be much harder to get a class action going in products liability cases, Im just saying its not impossible. In states like California where they are now requiring arbitrators to keep records of why they reached their decision it may be possible for one arbitration to have an effect on all other arbitrations under that agreement (so if one arbitrator finds the arbitration agreement is void, that plaintiff can then have their day in court and possibly that arbitration record could be used to void the arbitration proceedings for others under the same contract).
Basically, I think we're arguing about two different things - I simply have issue with the word impossible, because consumer class actions arent impossible. Even those subject to arbitration agreements arent impossible, theyre just highly unlikely (nearly impossible) because the Supreme Court has seen fit to include an additional hurdle to getting a class certified.
This decision increases the need to fix arbitration, but we are unlikely to see that because 1) this congress hates doing decent things, and 2) congress is owned by corporations and they on the whole like forcing consumers into arbitration.