Think this Lawsuit will gain traction, or slip?

[FromWayDowntown]

FWDT, thanks for the info. I'm fine with juries determining the culpability of the store owner; I don't think this is an issue in which black or white laws will necessarily serve the public interest the best, as minute differences in detail will appear in each case.

And that's precisely why we have juries -- not every case is black and white, either factually or legally. And the concern that juries will run roughshod over common sense or even the law is precisely why we have appellate courts to review the work of juries.

[coyotes_geek]

And that's precisely why we have juries -- not every case is black and white, either factually or legally. And the concern that juries will run roughshod over common sense or even the law is precisely why we have appellate courts to review the work of juries.

Please correct my perception if it's inaccurate, but aren't most of these lawsuits made just in hopes of getting a settlement? I respect your trust of the jury/appeals process, but it seems to me like the majority of the damage done by frivolous suits occurs before things ever get into a courtroom.

[coyotes_geek]

And that's precisely why we have juries -- not every case is black and white, either factually or legally. And the concern that juries will run roughshod over common sense or even the law is precisely why we have appellate courts to review the work of juries.

On a separate note, it's interesting to hear your point of view on the whole jury/appeals process and compare that with the opinions of a family friend who works for a big company. The company he works for is getting sued or threatened to be sued weekly. He's not a lawyer but is high enough on the corporate food chain that dealing with lawsuits is something he needs to concern himself with. He and I were having a conversation about frivolous lawsuits once and he swears to me that the absolute last thing in the world they want is to end up before a jury. No real point here, just an observation as to the different perception of juries coming from different perspectives.

[FromWayDowntown]

Please correct my perception if it's inaccurate, but aren't most of these lawsuits made just in hopes of getting a settlement? I respect your trust of the jury/appeals process, but it seems to me like the majority of the damage done by frivolous suits occurs before things ever get into a courtroom.

Oh I think there's some truth to that, but I also don't think that anyone settles a frivolous lawsuit for anything more than pennies on the dollar. I'd guess, however, that a nearly equal number of defendants facing such suits also avoid the trial court by obtaining pre-trial relief from courts (summary judgments, dismissals, etc.).

To the extent that the capitalistic instinct isn't a cure to frivolous lawsuits -- or at least a curb -- and the use of pre-trial means to avoid trial isn't an ultimate cost savings, I'd argue that there are underutilized procedural mechanisms in place to permit parties to not only get out of frivolous suits but also to obtain compensation from the parties who file frivolous suits.

[FromWayDowntown]

On a separate note, it's interesting to hear your point of view on the whole jury/appeals process and compare that with the opinions of a family friend who works for a big company. The company he works for is getting sued or threatened to be sued weekly. He's not a lawyer but is high enough on the corporate food chain that dealing with lawsuits is something he needs to concern himself with. He and I were having a conversation about frivolous lawsuits once and he swears to me that the absolute last thing in the world they want is to end up before a jury. No real point here, just an observation as to the different perception of juries coming from different perspectives.

There are certainly repeat players in the litigation process and those repeat players are usually either absolutist in their refusal to settle cases or absolutist in their refusal to go to trial. There are certainly lawyers who file cases with absolutely no desire to take those cases in front of juries. The latter is certainly a problem -- but, again, the existence of that problem doesn't: (a) undermine the effectiveness of our justice system; or (b) suggest that the best way to eradicate those abuses is to outlaw personal injury actions altogether.

[Wild Cobra]

Please correct my perception if it's inaccurate, but aren't most of these lawsuits made just in hopes of getting a settlement? I respect your trust of the jury/appeals process, but it seems to me like the majority of the damage done by frivolous suits occurs before things ever get into a courtroom.

I think that's true to some extent. There is a common perception that the people we have on juries are too dumb to get out of it, and mostly among those who would love to win a jackpot themselves. I think in this case though, it will never be settled, and if it makes it to trial will have no award.

I think the cases that get settles are mostly those that are risky because of the jury, and then settle pennies on the dollar, or less than what a defense would cost even if they win.

[jack sommerset]

I thought everyone knew this...

Nope. I've been in there a couple of times, thought about buying a fish but never did. I did see the groom service but no dogs walking around the store. I buy dog food at the grocery store and have no reason to be in PetSmart. Now that I know dogs can take s in the store I won't be going back. I hope the guy wins the suit.