the concept of legal fairness although maybe not an oxymoron is at best illusive. Your article is more like industry propaganda, isn’t it? I support the concept of judges and jury’s
for the best shot at fairness, especially when it comes to corporate matters.
The basic problems are juries and locally elected judges beholden to the plaintiff’s bar. We all want a fair forum. Knowledgeable decisionmakers would be a wonderful bonus. Until insurers can use arbitration to “Leave the Lawsuit Lottery”, or enough insureds mandate arbitration with employees and customers, then this mess will continue.
No sane executive would ever trust a Third World Court System, in say Zimbabwe. Every good contract requires arbitration, which is enforceable as a matter of federal law and in 167 countries by international treaty. Why do we continue to tolerate similar judicial extortions here? Companies can push for political reform, or do it themselves by using the Federal Arbitration Act to extricate themselves from the local legal hell holes. As long as nothing is done, the problem persists.
Your organization should at least be honest with its so-called “legal fairness rankings”, and tell it like it is. Legal fairness to you means business entities being immunized from lawsuits; this is corporate america’s dream. And under this administration, corporate American is the majority stockholder. Shame on you!
Many people don’t know how the US economic system works. When excessive jury awards are paid out the feasor only pays a small part of the award (if at all)by way of increased insurance premiums. The cost of insurance then goes up for everyone. The jurors who recommended the excessive award wonder why the cost of medical care and medical insurance has gone up. They wonder why they can’t find a doctor. Or why there is less in a box of breakfast cereal. We are all paying for the uneven and unfair redistribution of wealth that excessive awards cause. We need a reasonable cap on awards that allows for reasonable compensatory damages.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
the concept of legal fairness although maybe not an oxymoron is at best illusive. Your article is more like industry propaganda, isn’t it? I support the concept of judges and jury’s
for the best shot at fairness, especially when it comes to corporate matters.
The basic problems are juries and locally elected judges beholden to the plaintiff’s bar. We all want a fair forum. Knowledgeable decisionmakers would be a wonderful bonus. Until insurers can use arbitration to “Leave the Lawsuit Lottery”, or enough insureds mandate arbitration with employees and customers, then this mess will continue.
No sane executive would ever trust a Third World Court System, in say Zimbabwe. Every good contract requires arbitration, which is enforceable as a matter of federal law and in 167 countries by international treaty. Why do we continue to tolerate similar judicial extortions here? Companies can push for political reform, or do it themselves by using the Federal Arbitration Act to extricate themselves from the local legal hell holes. As long as nothing is done, the problem persists.
Your organization should at least be honest with its so-called “legal fairness rankings”, and tell it like it is. Legal fairness to you means business entities being immunized from lawsuits; this is corporate america’s dream. And under this administration, corporate American is the majority stockholder. Shame on you!
I live in Alabama, ranked # 48, and as one who has experienced the legal system, I was amazed at the Judge’s bias.
Many people don’t know how the US economic system works. When excessive jury awards are paid out the feasor only pays a small part of the award (if at all)by way of increased insurance premiums. The cost of insurance then goes up for everyone. The jurors who recommended the excessive award wonder why the cost of medical care and medical insurance has gone up. They wonder why they can’t find a doctor. Or why there is less in a box of breakfast cereal. We are all paying for the uneven and unfair redistribution of wealth that excessive awards cause. We need a reasonable cap on awards that allows for reasonable compensatory damages.