A lawyer coming on the short end of a verdict blames “outside forces”:
“It’s an uphill battle for any lawyer bringing a medical malpractice case,” Carr said. “Who wants to go up against a jury where most of them have probably been brainwashed by propaganda about litigation?”
Related posts:
- Sore loser
- Loser pays: A cerebral palsy trial in Canada may bankrupt the plaintiff
- Malpractice plaintiff wins case, wants more
- A plaintiff attorney goes bankrupt after winning a malpractice settlement
- The overzealous jury, for the defense
- Using the layman juror to the plaintiff lawyer’s advantage
- Letters to the jury: Look at what your ridiculous award has caused
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 7 comments }
Sounds like he’s taking a cue from the medical lobby.
We need a healthy dose of “loser pays”, as in England, to finally stop the lawsuit lottery.
If the prosecution loses, the prosecution (i.e., patient) pays all court trial costs.
We have loser pays.
Any one who says that obviously does not know how the real world works. How about if the person who loses can’t pay, their attorney has to pay.
If I knew I could recoup the loss of lawyer and time I would take every case that ever came up against me to the court.
Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t read the Rules of Civil Procedure and so probably shouldn’t be giving advice on how to change a system they barely understand.
And England doesn’t have loser pays for every case like you legal beagles think it does. Cases with genuine factual disputes generally aren’t eligible.
Why don’t you guys work on improving a system you DO understand.
“Who wants to go up against a jury where most of them have probably been brainwashed by propaganda about litigation?”
ROFLMAO! It was all I could do to keep from spewing Pespi through my nose.
This made my day.
Why would you be so chuckly about your own ignorance?
Comments on this entry are closed.