From KHOU:
Earlier this year, we shared a video detailing Perry's "Loser Pays" tort reform law. We also covered the rape of Jamie Leigh Jones, a woman who alleged she was gang raped and held captive while working for KBR in Iraq. (You can read more details here).
KBR contended that her allegations were shrouded in exaggeration and her story did not match the evidence they did have, and they won the lawsuit.
At the very least, this discourages people from using the court system in legitimate cases. If an employer fires a woman for being pregnant, and she sues and loses, she's out of a job AND liable for legal fees and court costs. This law removes practical access to justice for the poor. Even if a case is legitimate, someone without money for a high-priced lawyer can have mediocre representation, and when facing giant conglomerates with unlimited cash, many people may choose to not sue. Of COURSE corporations like this law!
When Governor Perry signed this into law, he said "This important legislation will help make Texas that much more attractive to employers seeking to expand or relocate from countries all over the world by allowing them to spend less time in court and more time creating jobs."
I hope Texans will consider voting for representatives who intend to repeal this law next session. The pursuit of economic prosperity with disregard to the pursuit of justice can only lead to the further degradation of civil rights.
A judge has ordered a former KBR Inc. employee to pay $145,000 of the company's court costs after she lost her lawsuit alleging she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq.A federal jury in Houston had ruled for KBR and against Jamie Leigh Jones after her civil trial in July. KBR had asked U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison to award $2 million in legal fees and court costs against Jones, but Ellison approved only the court costs on Monday.
Earlier this year, we shared a video detailing Perry's "Loser Pays" tort reform law. We also covered the rape of Jamie Leigh Jones, a woman who alleged she was gang raped and held captive while working for KBR in Iraq. (You can read more details here).
KBR contended that her allegations were shrouded in exaggeration and her story did not match the evidence they did have, and they won the lawsuit.
At the very least, this discourages people from using the court system in legitimate cases. If an employer fires a woman for being pregnant, and she sues and loses, she's out of a job AND liable for legal fees and court costs. This law removes practical access to justice for the poor. Even if a case is legitimate, someone without money for a high-priced lawyer can have mediocre representation, and when facing giant conglomerates with unlimited cash, many people may choose to not sue. Of COURSE corporations like this law!
When Governor Perry signed this into law, he said "This important legislation will help make Texas that much more attractive to employers seeking to expand or relocate from countries all over the world by allowing them to spend less time in court and more time creating jobs."
I hope Texans will consider voting for representatives who intend to repeal this law next session. The pursuit of economic prosperity with disregard to the pursuit of justice can only lead to the further degradation of civil rights.
Here in Texas (and I believe in every other state) it is the job of the judge to throw out frivolous lawsuits. It is also within the purview of the judge to order malicious lawsuit filings to be stopped (and asses penalties, including jail time and/or fines should his/her order be ignored). Judges truly are the "referee" who is responsible for the "game" (suit) to be halted or declared fit to continue.
As to the "loser" pays - I am against that being a hard and fast rule. There are some things where the judge is making a call not on the law, but on how well or how much of the law was presented in court. Someone who loses their case because it was the type of case that could have gone either way, or someone who loses a case because of counsel that was less competent that opposing counsel -- that stuff happens all the time. IMO, if a judge allows a suit to continue to trial - it is NOT a frivolous lawsuit (otherwise, he would have thrown it out). IMO, if a suit continues to trial, awards as to cost of suit and trial should follow statute or be decided by the court. i.e., In Texas, if you owe more than $20,000 in past due child support, under law, the court has NO CHOICE but to award all costs of suit and trial to the deadbeat. (However, I can attest that Harris County court judges do not seem to be particularly interested in following Texas laws.)
They have the right and access to recover damages from him, though, as well. (and they should win, that man is horrid)
It isn't a perfect system, and with any right, people WILL abuse it. That is what judicial oversight and authority is for. Taking away the rights of everyone to punish a few is, indirectly, what this law does.
"The Chungs moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising. The Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating, but on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal".
This guy knew every trick in the book to keep his lawsuit alive. IMO, he knew good and well he would never get that kind of money and was just out to cost them a fortune.
I believe that, in this case, the judge should have used his authority to dismiss the lawsuit as frivolous after reviewing pre-trial evidence. A motion to dismiss by the plaintiffs should have been granted. I'm no lawyer, admittedly, I don't know state law or civil law in that state. I don't think that lawsuit should have ever made it on the docket in the first place.
I just skimmed the wiki article, did those folks counter sue for harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Just to play Devil's Advocate..what about the multimillion dollar pants suit? This seemed to be an example of someone who knew the law really sticking it to a "little guy" and eventually costing them something to the tune of 83 grand in legal fees. Had they not been able to recover the money by fund raising, should the bringer of this frivolous suit be relieved of all financial responsibility for the damage he obviously caused?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung
Make the attorneys who BRING the frivolous lawsuits to court pay half of the court costs, and you would see an even more drastic decline in this kind of thing clogging the courts.
Most people don't stand in front of the judge without an attorney willing to represent them, and take their money no matter what.
Perhaps a 'Gong Show' for lawsuit approvals is in order, eh? Then they can proceed as usual...
Not like KBR needs the money. And, even though they probably weren't "guilty" this time.....THIS TIME may be the exception. Any company that has that dick Cheney involved is crooked, laracenous, amoral, enethical......and probably several other things I just can't think of for the moment.
I agree there should not be a penalty "per se" for filing or losing a lawsuit. I DO, however, feel that a defendant should be able to (and, I think can) file a counter-suit for "malicious litigation" and collect damages for same if they can prove it. There was this lunatic on 20/20 or such that spent his "free time" suing ALL his neighbors over everything and anything. Many would just throw money his way to avoid defending the suits. THAT crap has to stop.
Me, personally, I would have just played "The Equalizer" on his ass to discourage such behavior. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
I really wanted to believe this girl because I feel certian all kinds of crap goes unpenalized at KBR/Brown & Root.
I believe carguy has a valid point about this particular case. Some things aren't adding up. It doesn't change my position regarding this particular law.
The court systems should be completely open and free to all citizens. It is part of the 'Commons' that we are entitled to have free access to. Roads & elections are other "commons".
Everyone already pays for the court system with their taxes. Judges have broad authority to throw out frivolous lawsuits. You should not be monetarily penalized for losing a lawsuit.
I suspected as much...but anyway...KBR's got plenty of money... :O)
Far be it from me to argue with you, my esteemed colleague, however, all should read the referenced "Mother Jones" article in the first paragraph. I had not followed this story intently but this story clearly shows WHY she lost the case and WHY we should all not necessarily be on Ms. Jones side.
Sorry, that's how I see it.
Now, regards the court cost issue.....the "loser pays" seems to work in many other countries and indeed discourages frivolous lawsuits. But, OTOH, it probably discourages a lot that are NOT frivolous too. Slippery slope.....
it's just an injustice...period.
Agreed, and we all need to continue to make that legal argument become a campaign imperative. Thanks for pointing that out!