Um... isn't the exact opposite true, namely that under the current system a poor person can't even afford to win a lawsuit and thus have to avoid them at all cost, no matter how certain they are of winning?
> Um... isn't the exact opposite true, namely that under the current system a poor person can't even afford to win a lawsuit and thus have to avoid them at all cost, no matter how certain they are of winning?
Not as plaintiff, where there own legal costs are less than the amount at issue.
As a defendant, maybe, or a plaintiff in a case where the costs of prosecution outweigh the potential recovery, yes. (The former is clearly undesirable, the latter less clearly so.)
OTOH, with this change, it makes the position of the (largely mythical) certain-to-win party (plaintiff or defendant) somewhat better, while making a significantly less wealthy party worse off in pretty much every other case.
The outline of the current system, where awards of costs have a higher standard than just "whoever wins also gets costs". That's not to say that there aren't tweaks to the details of when costs and/or additional sanctions for abuses are awarded that would make the current system better, but switching to loser pays as a rule isn't one of them.
