Comments by "EebstertheGreat" (@EebstertheGreat) on "Lawsuits That Actually Weren't Ridiculous" video.

  1. Right, if a lawsuit goes nowhere, that doesn't mean much. Anyone can sue for whatever they want. But if a large judgment is awarded, there is probably a reason a jury of 12 people decided that was reasonable, and why the judge allowed it. Maybe in some cases it's due to poorly-written or unreasonably punitive laws (e.g. a $2 million judgment for illegally downloading 24 songs), but in most cases it's because the news didn't give you all the information.
    82
  2.  @jamestheotherone742  Champerty and barratry exist, but they are enormously magnified by the news, which tries to turn it into an epidemic. It's not common to find people winning obviously flawed lawsuits. That's why lawsuits like these made it into papers and political speeches: for want of better examples. There are Saul Goodman types out there, but there aren't tens of thousands of them roaming the country. Maybe the most significant abuses are in finding representatives for class action lawsuits, where insufficient scrutiny is often applied, so some representatives may not have a valid claim. Even then, the underlying lawsuits, say for mesothelioma caused by asbestos, are usually reasonable. There is a widespread belief that frivolous lawsuits are out of control, pushed by conservatives for decades, but the belief is completely unfounded, as you can find by looking at the evidence. Lawsuits are actually at a low right now. There are fewer lawyers. And compensatory judgments are not on the rise. Really, the only big problems now are large statutory judgments (where the award is written into the law, instead of determined by actual damages) and SLAPPs by wealthy individuals, and even those are rarer than the news would have you believe.
    20
  3.  @gcooper642  The fact that it was an accident just means that it wasn't a crime. That doesn't mean the driver wasn't at fault.
    5
  4. The guy could sue for personal injury anyway. Usually the only reason to do that would be if he was treated by private practice not covered by the NHS, but it's not that unusual. Presumably the liability insurance would pay the judgment, not the driver.
    3
  5.  @jdatlas4668  If you have collision insurance, it will be paying the legal fees, not you. Of course, this is only an issue if the other insurance refuses to pay the claim. I don't see why it is strange at all that a driver who is at fault and injures you should be on the hook for your injury. Legal fees and the like are only an issue if the driver (or the driver's insurance) refuses to pay.
    1
  6.  @jdatlas4668  Well I fully agree that "at least you can sue him" is a bizarre statement on multiple levels. I guess I should have led with that.
    1