dayman

Ya just saw prometheus and it doesn't deserve the hate it gets from some and IMO many of the "plot holes" are not even plot holes. Prometheus is good. Stunning 3d visuals IMO also

LOL RI Bills trying to entertain 3rd ... you just troll him. That's what he's good for. Leave the talking for the rest of TBD

Agreed. I mean if you lose 4 out of 5 games...even if 3 are on the road...you just lost the series and you damn near got swept so you really don't have a leg to stand on complaining about the structure of the series...you got whooped.

But what exactly are you trying to say here? They're tough to win, often complicated, and really expensive...they get dropped and thrown out often...if you actually to go trial and lose you just blew thousands (often 10s of thousands) of dollars...the win rate is (at best) 25% lower than other tort cases (in reality much lower)...everything we're both saying doesn't exactly sound like it's a good thing going to just sue all over for medmal eh?

Classic series in the making. Obviously. Great time to be a basketball fan. LETS GO HEAT!

The wisdom of the sith

Good first half for the heat

LOL B-man, pretty sure that's a rhetorical question from Doc. If you don't know the team the fake cable news channels are on by now...nonsense on nonsense if you haven't noticed.

I wonder why the leaks aren't a bigger story? Pretty shocking huh?

illegals, leaks, socialist, use bathroom, illegals, illegals, tort reform, socialist, leaks, leaks, food, leaks, socialist, sleep, dream of illegals leaking per socialist agenda, leaks -the mind of a culture warrior patriot

LOL as if the leaks aren't big news. We all get it 3rd. Fox News. Say what you mean. Why aren't the leaks all anyone talks about ever? *dives headfirst*

3rd and his endless desire to dive head first into every talking point sent to distract him.

Well first off I'm not asking for you to have sympathy for the attorneys. While I'm not sure about the 10% number (it's probably closer to 25%ish) it's certainly much lower in medmal than in all other tort cases. But what you need to see is this refutes the idea that they take everything that comes their way. These are difficult cases to win, expensive cases to finance, and they don't just take them right and left to throw spaghetti at the wall b/c as the numbers show you will go broke doing that.

Trust me it's no business model. Big firms aren't going to tolerate losing trials all over the place and if you are anything but a large firm losing a few trials in a row is a one way ticket to being broke as a lawyer and teaching writing at your local law school. Hell...a lot of plaintiffs lawyers can't stand to lose more than 2 trials in a row.

The same system. There are a variety of legal remedies you may be able to seek depending on the state you live in and the facts of the either particular case. And if the case was thrown out the other side lost money it was not in their best interest to simply throw spaghetti at the wall. If the facts don't give rise to any COA that can provide any relief and the news paper coverage hurt you, then that's life. It's not a perfect world I'm not saying it is. But the threat of litigation is a necessary evil in our society...and the press is the press.

LOL Doc. Funny. At it's core my overall opinion boils down to this: We can and should continue to talk about every idea there is, and look for ways to tweek the system and improve it carefully. It's never going to be perfect and just like other areas of the law it may well always seem like there are more cases than we would like and there will always be some bad outcomes in favor of both sides. But the traditional negligence formula is not so broken as some interests will have you think. Not every plaintiff wins. Most awards are within the realm of justice. Cases get thrown out. And yes...insurance costs money. Arbitrarily capping damages, overly restricting our access to the courts, vilifying tort plaintiffs and throwing our basic negligence law to the wolves isn't the way to go IMO. Tread carefully, err on the side of caution, don't believe every talking point you hear and protect your own rights...if you aren't willing to do so I promise you the Chamber of Commerce isn't going to do it for you. Keeping costs down is a noble effort but not at the expense of your rights...certainly not when it doesn't appear to pass itself on the customer anyway in many places where unjust caps have been implemented. Reasonable and careful reform that puts individual rights first is the only way to go here.

I don't think you can set a standard of care by statute...medicine is highly fact specific and the body of knowledge changes more quickly than the state congress can keep up with anyway...if less screening is the norm let that go to the negligence claim itself...as for arbitration boards I'm not opposed to voluntary arbitration but arbitration has it's own whole can of worms...

Agreed that parameters are not the same as a cap. Some level of parameter setting could be tolerable...particularly if they're more akin to guidelines accompanied by a nonexclusive set of factors ... certificates of merit are also not necessarily the devil MAYBE some sort of panel (on the flip side of reform to appease those who feel the system is harassing people)... there are obviously some things that can be done and some things that have been done in certain places that can make the system work a little smoother...I would still oppose hard parameters set by congress and dance with precedent any day of the week over the corporate shank job that shapes the caps and would shape any parameters to come from your average state congress (particularly in those real conservative states)...and that's really what it comes down to with me...it's almost always going to be closer to justice there than it is in Congress at the very least you and your story are there and they look you in the eye (and the other point of view just say that makes me pro-plaintiff then so be it). If some bought judge ****s you...he does it to your face. If a jury doesn't think you deserve it...they heard your case. That's the way it should be, that's the system I prefer. The punitive damages factor...meh...it's ok but the unpredictability of that hammer coming down (particularly with the larger corporations more prone to do the heartless calculations) is really what I see as the true deterrent...that fear of God so to speak...I'm not so concerned with punitive damages to tell you the truth though those are just a windfall in the end I get more riled up about the plaintiff's rightful award than I do about punitive damages. EDIT: And btw things like corporate shank job and "bought judges"...while I do know it's fact in certain times and in certain places I do know how it makes me sound and I'll just add this edit to say that yes in general it is a bit overboard to put it like that generally but just consider "overt politics" to be the lesser included there...this is a message board after all.

I can only imagine if they asked us in Florida if we wanted to stop paying property tax. Coupled with no income tax...it would be nice...and I'm sure our amazing schools would get better haha...probably get a few more professional golfers which would make all of them... I know nothing of ND but...this is surprising...maybe it shouldn't be

Except for the ones that don't want certain laws to pass....

They said no http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/13/pf/north-dakota-property-tax/

FYI for anyone that watched that video I posted where the guy in Texas shot is neighbor...he just went down for murder today. Only 5 hours of deliberation. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/apArticle/id/D9VCORV80/

LOL at the wording of the first sentence. Look at the stats in Texas since 2003. Doesn't seem to be true. As for the second sentence. I would argue you should move it China. (no offense of course)

Gina Chon, who had covered Iraq for the Journal, quit under pressure after the disclosure of her relationship with Brett McGurk while both lived in Baghdad in 2008. ....yup but that's not saying much...

LOL unless I would be claiming a loss of enjoyment of life? Of course I would be claiming loss of enjoyment in life. If I can't work anymore, we can have the battle of economists and figure out my earnings lost and all that...afterwords of course I'M !@#$ING BLIND. lol Can the jury tell how much money it would take to approximate making me whole as a result of that? Of course not, nobody can. I can never actually be made whole by money, it is a fiction. But that is no reason to deny me damages in an attempt to fairly compensate me for that. If the judge wants to reduce it afterwords b/c the jury was excessive FINE!!! So be it!!! But not the damn state congress with some cap of $250K that bears absolutely no relationship to me or my situation...that's completely unfair and honestly it's not justice it's just corrupt protectionism at the expense of my rights (in this hypothetical situation of course...I did not lose my eyes in Texas )