Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kuros]

Madoka wants to argue that the US is a litigious society. His example: parents of a 3-year-old sue the Staples Center after their child dies from a 30-foot drop after he scaled a 2 foot plexiglass barrier (picture here = http://i.huffpost.com/gen/221266/thumbs/s-STAPLES-CENTER-FALL-large.jpg). He follows this up with an array of anecdotes about his parents doing business.

I, for one, am happy the United States has such a robust tort system, so that individuals are compensated for injuries when others act negligently. Again, if you are a small business, get liability insurance.

[7drunkennights]

Something similar happened in Leeds and it seems the guardians of the child have been arrested on suspicion of criminal neglect. It's hard to compare the two stories but it is a completely different way of approaching it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-13625176

[southern boy]

Well an SNU professor managed to sue Ford motor over 700k when he paralyised while on tour in the US.

ahhh America in $ we trust.

[jfromtheway]

"Tort reform," should be the key phrase here. From my experience, most of those with merit in the legal community will tell you that the tort system has been turning rightfully in the direction it should for the last couple decades. Without it, costs usually increase, businesses usually get hit disproportionately in the end, and the legal system as a whole usually hits itself in the face as far as integrity is concerned; which is why frivolous civil suits usually get thrown out like trash these days.

I myself banked deep from a civil suit I was the plaintiff in vs. an insurance company a number of years ago. I would not have sued if the other individual involved did not have homeowner's insurance. And if not for recent tort reforms in the state, I would have likely received a low six-figure amount on top of what I ended up getting (which was close to that mark), if not more. And my lawyers were obviously against tort reform, at least in my case. But I'm not complaining that I didn't receive more money.

The insurance company low-balled, we went to trial, and I received much, much more than the settlement offer, which they largely based on their odds of winning due to those tort reforms. And no, it was not frivolous, and it didn't involve me spilling hot coffee on my junk. But I still strongly believe in tort reform. The tort system generally drives up costs, generally limits businesses, and generally reduces the effectiveness of the legal system.

There should obviously be accountability from the producer/supplier (even for Lakers' tickets) to the consumer, as with any business relationship, when unfortunate things happen whether subjectively avoidable or not... But they happen, and that's the market which many lawyers base their existences on. Many 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' beneficiaries use them for it, and the ultimate authorities are generally the best we got (jury/judge).

Regardless, there is a major difference between a big business (like L.A. A-wipe property owners, or insurance companies) and small business owners/individuals who don't safeguard themselves or their entities.