A court in Denmark has ruled that a car owners insurance should cover anyone that is in the vehicle. Even if that person is a car thief who stole the car.
Apparently some guy stole a car and then injured himself when he totalled it. He then sued the insurance company and won a judgement of $108,000 USD. Is this the seventh sign of the appocalypse or what?
Reminds me of a case I heard about in California. A prison inmate was suing himself for his loss of personal freedom. But since he had no money he expected the state to pay the judgement if he won.
The saddest commentary isn't on the people who are bringing the litigation into the courts. It's the jury of 12 people, supposedly of sound mind, who actually make the award of the judgement. It truly is a sad state we're in. We live in a society where no-one is responsible for their own actions anymore. Pathetic.
With all respect Taijiguy, it is not strictly the jurors fault. Taking into account that the responsiblity to pick the jury rests on the lawyers. It is the lawyers who are bending the public over and reamming them, not the jurors. The lawyers pick the jurors who will help that lawyer win the case, bottom line.
The more a person feels about things, meaning uses their emotions upon which they base their decisions, the more likely the lawyer will choose that individual. A juror who thinks about matters and uses logic instead of emotion has the opportunity to destroy the emotional based argument the lawyer will make.
The problem with today's society is that people feel one way or another, without really knowing why. A true statesman looks at the facts, thinks about the facts and makes a decision based on their understanding of the facts, whether that decision is correct or incorrect, that stateman used their brain to think instead of feel.
There seem to be a lot of people at fault in my book.
The Jury definately. They award way too much for some of the worst cases.
The Judges for allowing these awards to go through. Also, the judge can throw these cases out, and some (like the cali prisoner) one that should get thrown out.
Lawyers. Yeah they pick the jury, but worse than that is they accepted the case. My dads a lawyer and he carefully weighs the validity of each case before taking it on. However, some just "go for it" and try to turn everybody's anger towards someone into a case.
But its still better than living under a system with more corrupt courts. Overall ours are fairly good.
Actually, Gold, I have to say the observation I make about your post is that you would be one of those jurers who would make such an award. Don't ge me wrong, I don't say it in an attemp to insult, merely to draw attention to a fact- you summarily dismissed the jurers from the responsibility of making an intelligent choice by saying it's the fault of the lawyers for picking those jurors. You basically made excuses for them, saying the aren't capable of discerning fact from feeling. That's the very attitude that makes them award judgements to people who obviously have no case. Those jurors find the person to be not responsible for their own actions. It seems very similar to me. Just something to think about...
Taiji, no insults taken, but allow me to explain myself further.
First, since this really is not a political forum, I try my best not to express political opinion on matters. Yet, I take exception to the statement that I am like one of the jurors I described, however, with that, everyone here is not able to see the political thoughts that I possess. What is not evident is that I firmly believe - that each individual is responsible for their own actions regardless of outside influences.
More to the point about my post, is this. Scum lawyers (unlike FFormula's dad who weight and evaluate the case against their own values and beliefs and accept only those they can honestly defend) take cases and exploit the citizens (jurors, defendants, plantiffs, judges, everyone) for their own gain - no one elses.
These lawyers play the jurors they select. What is unfortunate is that the jurors being played don't even know that they are being played, or worse yet, they know it and allow it to happen.
Now I am not saying that people can't grow and learn to think and rationalize things, but people who go through their entire life not knowing why they are doing something, contribute to the debasement of our court system. They believe that they are helping matters and people, when in effect their are destroying livelihoods.
The one thing that most jurors do not know is jury nulification. If lawyers would select citizens who are intelligent to sit as jurors, stupid rulings like the old lady who was burned by her purchased coffee at McDonald's would not happen, or if they did, hopefully, they would happen infrequently.
I do agree with FFormula that our system is better than the rest of the world's courts, but it could still use refinement. The Fathers of the US did not intend for uninformed citizens to sit on jury panels, and they, unfortunately, are who are placed on many jury panels in today's society - people who are uninformed and uneducated and therefore cannot make a rational decision - put there by none other than lawyers.
------------------ Gold-86SE (Fiero Collector)
[This message has been edited by Gold-86SE (edited 08-17-2000).]
I understand what you're saying, and in part at least, I agree. One point you make, in essence, is that we should be all be responsible for our actions. I may be a bit extreme in this, since I feel we are responsible for EVERYTHING in our lives, not only things we do, but the things we experience, which is a whole different topic. Suffice it to say, I gree with you on that. I also agree that many lawyers are lowlifes, and don't deserve to be allowed to practice, it should be a privelidge and an honor, not a purchase that goes to any dirtbag who can afford the degree. The bar should include some morality testing in it's requirements. However, the problem with your argument is that the defense lawyers are also given the same choice of jurors. Just because a suing lawyer selects a juror, doesn't mean the defense has to accept that person. They are given the same opportunity to remove jurors they find to be unacceptable. I also am not so sure I agree that we have an exceptional system. When a guy is allowed to go basically unpunished time after time, for something like drunk driving, there's too much leniency. He shoudl lose his liscnes for LIFE on FIRST time. Our judicial system needs to be more decisive, and swift in its execution of punishment. Again, all about a person actually being held accountable for their actions. "What about people who are falsely accused" you may ask? OK, See, my basic feeling about this is, that people who are "falsely" accused or convicted of crimes have put themselve in a position where they may BE accused falsely. As an example, I'm a law abiding person (for the most part) I don't run around with drug dealers, murderers, rapists, or thieves. I keep company with honorable, honest, respectible people. I have NEVER been falsely accused or tried for anything, and nonoe that I spend time with has either. If a person chooses to hang with the sort of person who is prone to illegal behavior, they make themselves vulnerable, and should be aware of that. I think this is getting a bit fragmented, but hopefully I'm making my point. The bottom line for me is, the jurors are reponsible for the decisions they make. Period. And if they choose to award some moron a ga-zillion dollars for spilling coffee on their own lap, I think the judge, being a supposedly intelligent, common-sensical observer with the authority and responsibilty to ensure a fair and equitible judgement is made, should initiate a suit against the JURORS to make THEM liable for the award amount. Threaten jurors with THAT and you'd have a hell of alot fewer stupid decisions! Again, make them responsible for their own actions. I bet they'd find the person ALOT less deserving of the judgement if it were coming out of their own pockets! (Which it is, they just don't know it)