It's all about who has the deeper pockets. His friend is broke, the bar has liability insurance. This lawsuit will go nowhere, but the bar is facing big expenses in defending itself. Hence, the bar will probably offer some settlement. Which is the point: this is blackmail, pure and simple.

This happens only because the guy has nothing to lose. It costs him nothing: Some crappy lawyer takes this case on commission, and makes the threat. If it doesn't work, they've lost nothing.

This crap will go on until we adopt "loser pays".

Have to agree with a_random_guy. If a lawsuit is deemed frivolous, which this one surely is, then shouldn't the aggrieved party be held responsible?

But I'm not so certain that the lawsuit will go nowhere. Bartenders and cashiers are now required by law to be everyone's mother and not serve to intoxicated people. Never mind that belligerents could place these people in danger and that they aren't given any tools (such as breathalyzers) to ascertain someone's sobriety levels.

That's what I get for mentally editing in mid sentence. That should read, "Shouldn't the aggrieved party [meaning the person on the receiving end of a frivolous lawsuit] be entitled to compensation?"

As long as lawyers make the laws, this is what we get.
"Loser pays" doesn't matter to the lawyers. They ALWAYS get paid no matter who wins.

Loser pays is a pretty crappy idea when our legal system is as capricious as it is. Do you want the same people who let OJ and Casey Anthony free deciding whether you have to pay or not?

I've been a bartender. Not overserving-and the legal remifications for myself personally if I did-were a large part of my training.

I'm not saying this guy is in the right. I think he's not. And I really wish someone who had been on that section of road that night would sue HIM for wreckless endangerment.

Post a notice

Warning: The act of purchasing any product from us means you agree to settle all litigation in binding arbitration by an arbiter of our choosing

Then choose someone who isnt a fucking moron

How did these assholes get to the truck stop? Was it in walking distance, and did they walk there?

Well a google map search puts the nearest truck stops at about 4.5 miles. Walkable but doubtful.

But why isn't this joker not suing the truck stop for not putting in a padded parking lot, so when he gets hit by his friend he doesn't break his empty skull?

Unfortunately, courtrooms are not places where justice is priority. In most cases, most people in the room are there trying to get as much money as possible.

I see it in family court too. I have more than one friend who goes there solely to get access to their kids, while everyone else is leveraging for as much money and assets as possible.

I fear having my life destroyed legal by our justice system more than I.fear terrorism.

I used to work for an attorney who defended bars and nightclubs when they would get sued for this kind of stuff. We were assigned by the insurance company to these cases. I've seen it all...and had a ton of fun working there. My favorite case: Guy goes into a bar looking for a fight with someone he feels has wronged him. We'll call him Moron. Well Moron finds the guy he's looking for, we'll call that guy Joe. Well Moron walks up behind Joe and punches him in the back of the head and a scuffle ensues. The bouncers toss both guys out of the bar. So Joe's two buddies go outside to check on their friend. Moron goes to his truck and grabs a screwdriver and goes after Joe. Moron gets his ass kicked. The bar had already called the police so now they show up and take Moron into custody. Joe and his buddies go on their way. Six months later we get the personal injury lawsuit. We got the case thrown out, but only after considerable costs were incurred. You still have to respond to the lawsuit, conduct discovery, take depositions and then write the motion to get the causes of action dismissed. A lot of times, rather than spend $50k getting the case tossed out, we would offer up the $5k medical payments provision because it's cheaper than litigating.

"But, welcome to Lawsuit World! A guy gets into a drunken fight with a friend, gets a head injury, blames the bar, and is now suing the bar for $1 million -- or more."

It isn't just lawsuits. I have a similar story, only in this case the guilty party was convicted criminally. This being about 11 years ago, I don't remember what the charge was, negligent homicide I think....

I once had a friend whose brother went to a skeezy nightclub on the Vanier Strip. Apparently, he met up with buddy who was after the same girl he was after. Uh oh.....

This guy, apparently, was loaded before he got there, saw him come in, and went over to pick a fight. Him being a small wiry dude and the brother being 6'4 260, this was not a great idea in the first place.

Verbal smacking ensues.

Apparently, the brother got a little hot headed, and slapped him in the face. Dude punches him in the mouth. (What he was thinking, to this day, nobody knows....)

Of course, buddy turns around and punches him back. In the head. Hard.

He served 2 years.

Not fair. If you're drunk and start a fight, if you're drunk and trip down stairs and break your neck, if you start a fight and the bouncers knock you out on the brick wall they toss you into, it's your own damned fault.

This is the problem with insurance companies.

Traumatic brain injury.

Ah. That explains the lawsuit.

This is not a problem with insurance companies. This is a problem with the tort laws, in individual states, and the incestuous nature of the legal system in most countries.

Loser pays would solve a lot of problems. Just because it might have a few drawbacks, does not mean that it would not be quite a bit better than the system we have in place now.

What? They're not suing because they had to pay for their drinks, too? Rookies.

I used to know someone who complained that the gov't was taking away their livelihood because DUI penalties were too steep. Well, when you're on your fifth DUI, the problem might be you.

I've heard of this scam actually working at house get-togethers. Someone smokes a little too much pot or has too much wine and trips and falls. Next thing, they're getting a check from home owner's insurance co. to cover injuries and more.

"This is not a problem with insurance companies."

It is if you consider that before insurance existed, people were expected to take care of themselves.

If you fell down a flight of stairs drunk in the pre-insurance days, who were you gonna call? Who paid your medical bills then? D'ya think the judge wouldn't have laughed you out of court?

"This is not a problem with insurance companies."

It is if you consider that before insurance existed, people were expected to take care of themselves.

If you fell down a flight of stairs drunk in the pre-insurance days, who were you gonna call? Who paid your medical bills then? D'ya think the judge wouldn't have laughed you out of court?"

No, tort law goes back hundreds of years and people taking their injuries caused by another to court also goes back hundreds of years.
There are many cases that established the basis for tort law, where people sued other people and businesses for injury, that pre date the insurance industry. Many are from the 1800s or arise out of English common law much earlier.

The government is the one who has created a system, that supplies the perverse incentive for insurance companies to settle nuisance cases, rather than force everything to a trial.

Insurance is something that exists for a reason, and that reason, is to pool risk for losses that could be catastrophic, but only happen occasionally. Believe it or not insurance especially for risky business enterprises goes back hundreds of years also.

This is essentially what a limited liability company is, pooled risk, with defined maximum losses.

Health insurance has been distorted so much by government mandates, that it actually does not operate as insurance anymore. It is nothing by pre payment for medical expenses that WILL occur for almost everyone.

"and the incestuous nature of the legal system in most countries."

Exactly. Patrick asked about frivolous-lawsuit statutes; as far as I know, every state in the U.S. has them already. But they are never, ever enforced, not even in the most ludricous cases. Remember that "my tribe, right or wrong" thing we talked about in another thread? That's how the law industry works. Judges are lawyers too. So are most legislators.

At least when you pay protection money to the Mob, they leave you alone for a little while afterwards.

Yes, everyone should be responsible for the consequences of their decision to get drunk. Except fair damsels who shed their panties and then regret it the next day, of course!

So in the 1800's a guy in a bar would have won money for starting a fight?

OK then....