Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

The other side

June 30, 2013

You had an editorial June 17 entitled, “Class-action legal system needs to be reined in somewhat.” Please allow me to provide the facts....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jun-30-13 4:52 AM

Sorry Cliff, but everyone knows the only people who benefit from class action suits are the lawyers. These suits are BIG BUSINESS in this country. Lawyers spend millions on TV adds trying to get people to "bite." It is reprehensible and totally disgusting......the worst kind of ambulance chasing!

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 4:56 AM

Lawsuits are just another problem in a long list of problems associated with our 'get rich quick' oriented society. It's another attempt, another angle, to take the rich and give to the poor. Our founding fathers would never believe what they fought so hard for has become. It's a terrible shame.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 5:56 AM

Spoken like a true lawyer. And we wonder why our insurance goes up.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 6:03 AM

If we wish to discuss an unregulated system, this is it.....the legal system.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 7:40 AM

The foxes(business) is guarding the hen house (consumers, employees).

1 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 7:54 AM

Sorry, but until the consumers who were impacted get the lion's share of the settlements, I won't change my mind on this one. All I see are lawyers getting millions of dollars, while consumers get a voucher for $5 of free iTunes (as an example).

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 8:04 AM

Geez, Erik, you don't mind lawyers that much do you? There are those who file frivolous suits. There are many who do not. Multiple plaintiffs joining together in a class action suit. Here is an example: a toaster is a fairly cheap appliance. let's say a company produced a model that causes it to catch on fire. let's say 7,200 consumers had resultant kitchen fires with damage below an insurance deductible. One person could not afford to take on a corporation for their loss. 7200 consumers could. Some of you are discussing malpractice while others are complaining. Lawyers are horrible until you need one. Anyone remember the Ford Pinto's that would catch on fire? Let's say you have a factory defective automobile and your spouse, parent or child dies because of a malfunction, absolutely no fault of their own, do you want a lawyer. Let's say your house burns to the ground and your insurance refuses to pay? Think maybe, you need a lawyer?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 8:11 AM

Bingo, Cave.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 9:28 AM

Spike I agree that lawyers have their uses but I think you could also rattle off just as many frivolous law suits.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 9:35 AM

Like how about the class action suit against Subway for their foot long sub coming up a bit short.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 11:12 AM

The problem I have with lawyers is that they manage the system that makes them money.

There are no "rules" because anything can be challenged in court today.

There are no bulletproof contracts, wills or laws.

Everything is subject to challenge and interpretation.

The lawyers bring the cases, the judges are former lawyers and the politicians writing the laws are mostly lawyers.

An entire nation was founded on a set of documents only a few pages long.

Today, the most minimal bill debated in Congress is measured in hundreds or thousands of pages.

There is something wrong here.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 10:22 PM


I like your post of 11:12 a.m. There is much truth and you simplified the process rather well. Instead of immediately attacking people with their posts (outside of the obvious degrading and repetitive commentary) give the poster a chance to offer insight.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 10:35 PM

Spike is also correct in large part on her post about lawyers and the manner in which we respond to them, generally speaking. There is no replacing the wheel. When you need a lawyer, nothing else will do. Why do people get upset when a lawyer "makes money/lion's share (sarcasm) or "takes their cut?" Many practices hire based on compensation, if their specialty is civil. Yes, there are bad lawyers, but most of them are in Washington DC. My brother-in-law is a civil trial lawyer. His cut, at last count was one third of a settlement. Here's the caveat. Without his/her expertise, the two thirds doesn't exist. And, why is it a dentist can charge four to five hundred dollars on a root canal, another four or five on the crown that goes over that? I rarely hear as many derogatory comments about dentists or veterinarians as I do lawyers. Professionals make a living doing what they choose to do and we make a choice to avail ourselves/or not of their services.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 10:39 PM

I'd like to add something at this point. My brother-in-law and I personally haven't spoken with each other for over seven years. The estrangement isn't because my presumed bias, is not relevant to this discussion. Why is it however, that people resent lawyers, outside of their "take" on a case?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 10:42 PM

These are results of the USA having the highest per capita population of attornies, barristers and lawyers in the world. They need to create work for their over-supplied craft, and if that means taking frivolous, silly or even ridiculous cases, then so be it. Remember the McDonald's coffee suit of some years ago? Some dumb twit was stupid enough to put a hot cup of coffee between the legs, clumsily spilled it on said legs, and SOMEHOW it became McDonald's fault that they sold coffee to a moron. The only thing worse than an attorney accepting such a case is that the judge in the case didn't throw it out for sheer stupidity!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 10:58 PM

Where was the common sense in that case? The so-called 'victim' took a known HOT cup of coffee and put it in a RIDICULOUS place. Where is personal responsibility for one's actions? Any injuries sustained were the result of lack of sense, at best.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-01-13 4:03 AM

Spike, electrical appliances fail. Tools and equipment, if used improperly, can cause injury or death. Sometimes the failure of parts causes injury or death. The Ford Pinto's didn't just catch fire by themselves..... They would catch fire as a result of being rear ended in a collision and the gas tank rupturing. Quite a few GM trucks had the same problem in side impact crashes when the gas tanks were installed outboard of the frame rails.

But what are we talking about here? Life doesn't come without risk. There is no activity that doesn't come with at least minor risk. Modern conveniences use electricity and/or some kind of fuel to power them and using either is a risk we take to have the modern convenience.

So my question is, knowing that there is risk involved, why do we need to place blame and seek compensation from someone else if that risk becomes reality?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web