Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

...to cover my damages, not damage the other party.

If this were the normal thought process, vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed. Lots of things can happen to a plaintiff. Sure, she could win, in which case her attorneys' fees are typically subtracted from the damages. She could also lose, in which case she typically has to pay the attorneys. She could also lose in such a fashion that she could suffer other economic penalties as well. If compensation were the best possible outcome from a lawsuit, many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint about McDonald's.

Of course, that might be a better society in which to live, but it would be a very different society.



> vastly fewer lawsuits would ever be filed

I suppose, and this would be a net win for everyone, except lawyers?

> many potential plaintiffs would just go to Yelp with their complaint

Again isn't that a positive thing? If you feel a law was broken you tell the police, if it wasn't, you post a bad review?

> that might be a better society

Isn't the US legal system the odd one? I might be wrong here. What's the lawyers-to-population ratio or legal-fees-per-lifetime compared to other systems? I admit I have no data but my gut says "not good".


Oh yeah I agree this would be a vast improvement. I don't think it will happen while the current Constitution remains in force, however. Certainly there's no legal way to rein in the lawyers.

Preemptive for the "just send a letter to Congress" simpletons: for the half of Congress who aren't themselves lawyers, why will my letter be more persuasive than the very active lawyer lobby that gives them millions of dollars? Why will the lawyer president not veto your magical bill? Why will the lawyer judges in every court in the land not overturn it?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: