[QUOTE]Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Gisela Cardonne Ely was shocked. She had just watched a videotape of a medical malpractice plaintiff, who claimed in 2004 that she was permanently paralyzed, walking down the street with the use of a cane in 2005.
"This is the worst case of misrepresentation, of outright fraud, that I have ever had in 22 years," Cardonne Ely said during a March 15 hearing in the case of Wanda Davis-Johnson. "I'm telling you, Mrs. Davis, I'm looking at you in the eyes. I am dismissing your case. I have seen enough. ... I'm making a specific finding that there was a scheme to defraud the court."
The woman's attorney, of course, claims to be just as surprised as the judge. Meanwhile, [b]the vindicated defendant hospital "will be seeking to recover $225,000 in legal costs from Davis-Johnson," but one suspects that the odds of ever collecting that are somewhere between none and less than none.[/b][/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/04/walk_away.html] source [/url]
That's one of the changes we need to our tort system: if the plaintiff loses, he/she/it pays the legal fees of the defendent.
Davis-Johnson needs to pay--even if it's $100/mo the rest of her life
Same with the nut-job who accused the Duke guys of rape, although that PA should also help pay for their legal costs.
[QUOTE=mallamalla]It won't make too much of a difference, to be quite honest. In theroy it is a great idea, but the threat of a law suit leads to eventual settlements regardless of the claim.[/QUOTE]
It's actually a terrible idea, since that would effectively bar all but the richest of plaintiffs from the courts.
And I say this as a lawyer who is more often than not on the defense side, and who has actually had a case where a plaintiff testified to a supposed assault by store employees only to have videotape show something very very different.
[QUOTE=doggin94it]It's actually a terrible idea, since that would effectively bar all but the richest of plaintiffs from the courts.
Why?--if the plaintiff is truly wronged and has a good case they'll win! Making the loser pay would make lawyers think twice about taking a stupid, frivolous case--like $67 mill for lost pants or that stupid woman who sued McD's b/c she spilled hot coffee and burned herself.
[QUOTE=asuusa]Why?--if the plaintiff is truly wronged and has a good case they'll win! Making the loser pay would make lawyers think twice about taking a stupid, frivolous case--like $67 mill for lost pants or that stupid woman who sued McD's b/c she spilled hot coffee and burned herself.[/QUOTE]
McDonald's screwed themselves in that case. That lady wasn't the first person to sue them for third degree burns from coffee. McDonald's settled out of court with a lot of other people...they should have done the same here. The lady offered to settle for 20 grand, but they offered her 800 bucks.
Don't get me wrong. I think suing because of hot coffee is retarded. Coffee is supposed to be hot. But when you sell a billion cups of coffee a day, 20,000 wouldn't have put a dent in your coffee income for one day. They should have just cut their losses and banked on the fact that 99% of people like their coffee hot and won't sue if they are unlucky enough to spill it in their crotch...