Does anyone know what the GOP/dumbya considers frivilous lawsuits?

[mandyky]

I watched the TV drama The Guardian last night and the story was about a coal company trying to head off "frivilous" lawsuits. Turns out there was an underground coal fire that was making the residents of the area sick with cancer.

What I got from the show was the irony - frivilous lawsuits are anything that hurts big business by making them accountable. While I do believe there are some frivilous lawsuits, I think most of what the dumbya plan wants to so is to bullet-proof corporations from responsiblity and accountability.

[Drifter]

1. Anything against ...

his donors.

Cheers
Drifter

[SoCalDem]

2. Any suit where a polluter or criminal is found guilty of wrongdoing

is frivolous.. and when an individual sues a company it's always "frivolous"..

BUT.. if a guy's trying to ...say.... steal an election?? Well it's just okie-dokie to hire about 30 lawyers and do whatever it takes..:)

[radwriter0555]

3. Since bush enabled tort reform in TX, at the $$ of Ken Lay, he's touted

this frivolous lawsuit BS. Thanks to bush, victims of enron can't file lawsuits worth squat. Thanks george!

What it MEANS is to eschew anything that will hold a company financially accountable for the damage they've done, such as enron.

DEFINITELY look for the bush regime to make edwards a primary target on THIS specific catch phrase next year when edwards wins the primary (if the bush regime doesn't have him killed before hand)

For some light reading and good time entertainment, I suggest googling bush+tort+reform+texas+frivolous+lawsuit.. You should get a genuine glimpse of the detrimental impact the bush regime had on companies being held accountable for civil and criminal actions.

[liberalitch]

4. dude didn't really want to be president....

he and his buddies boarded the ship of state, plundered what they wanted and sacked the rest.
They have set up the law to protect themselves down the road when their HUN like behavior sees the light of day.

[NewGuy]

5. The legal profession already has a definition

Reference publications in the legal
field provide definitions of "frivolous" as follows:
"Of little weight or importance. A pleading is "frivolous"
when it is clearly insufficient on its face, and does not
controvert the material points of the opposite pleading,
and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or
to embarrass the opponent. A claim or defense is frivolous
if a proponent can present no rational argument based on
evidence or law in support of that claim or defense.
Liebowitz v. Aimexco. Inc., Colo, App., 701 P 2d 140, 142.
(Black's Law Dictionary (1990), p. 668; West's Law &
Commercial Dictionary (1985), p. 678.)
"... clearly insufficient as a matter of law; presenting no
debatable question. A claim is frivolous if it is
insufficient because unsupported by the facts or because
the law recognizes no remedy for the claim." (Barron's
Dictionary of Legal Terms, (1983), p. 191.)

The problem is that the definition is rarely used and does not often result in sanctions. If it did, there woiuld never be a second 'McDonalds made me fat' lawsuit since such a claim is "unsupported by the facts". Right now unscrupulous attorneys can go to court on any issue and there is no down side because the frivolous lawsuit issue so seldom results in penalties being applied.

The proposed legislation sets guidelines for the use of sanctions.

[calm_blue_ocean]

6. Was the lawsuit frivolous?

Just because there was a coal fire and some people got cancer doesn't necessarily mean that the lawsuit was a good one.

People get cancer everywhere.

Whether the lawsuit was frivolous would come down to complex issues involving normal rates of various cancers and extraneous factors (like smoking). If all the plaintiffs were heavy smokers, then the lawsuit may indeed be frivolous. If the cancers occurred at a normal rate, then the lawsuit might indeed be frivolous.

Don't get me wrong -- I think big business is the biggest problem we face. I think that big business unfairly tries to limit its liabilities all kinds of ways, including by measures againt "frivolous" lawsuits.

However, despite all the lurking bad motivations, you have not given enough information to determine whether this particular lawsuit was frivolous or not. The news item you saw probably also didn't provide enough information to determine whether this particular lawsuit was frivolous -- such information would have made the news item very long and very boring (like all toxic tort litigations are!).

Unless we go to a strict liability regime for cancer injuries, all this complicated, boring causation stuff will continue to be relevant and important on a case-by-case basis.

[mandyky]

7. The one character with cancer was 15

and the doctor said it was a "probablity" it was caused by environment.

Basically it was a new twist on Erin Brocovich's story.

[calm_blue_ocean]

8. So what?

Fifteen year old kids get cancer all the time.

I am not saying the lawsuit *was* frivolous. I am not saying that the plaintiffs should lose the lawsuit. All I am saying is that, assuming this drama was a real life news item, we should reserve judgement about whether this particular lawsuit is frivolous.

If the drama was real life and the judge decided that the lawsuit was frivolous then that decision is probably accurate. The judge gets an opportunity to make that decision based on all the long, boring, complicated evidence that was not presented in the drama you saw.

It is an easy feat to go to just about any community and find a bunch of people (including kids) with cancer. In real life, the question over whether some particular polluter caused the cancer is much, much more complicated.

Edit: I didn't realize we were talking about a fictional drama til now.