Family that sued ammo sellers cries the blues over judgment

[johndoe3]

The Ghawi family of Aurora, Colorado lost their daughter as a shooting victim during the Aurora "Batman" theater shooting in 2012. Subsequently, they sued the internet ammo dealer (Lucky Gunner) who sold ammo to the shooter, trying to reap a big judgment.

Their lawsuit was tossed as frivolous and the judge ordered them to pay legal costs ($200,000). They are now crying the blues because they will have to declare bankruptcy.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national ... 24111.html

Sorry you lost your daughter; but the 'loser pays' system works to keep frivolous lawsuits like yours from clogging the courts.

[a_canadian]

I do feel slight empathy for the family, because hey, when you're an idiot life is a bit harder in some ways. But the root of this problem isn't the family's greed nor their stupidity, it's a legal system set up by and for lawyers and ex-lawyers (judges, politicians) to benefit lawyers. The lawyer who took their case ought to be the one paying the $200,000. If the 'system' as it stands really wanted to prevent frivolous lawsuits, the penalty of 'loser pays the fees' would be applied against the lawyers, not the plaintiffs. Frivolous lawsuits would vanish within minutes if such a law were enacted. Only batshit insane lawyers would pursue such idiotic suits as this one. Most lawyers aren't batshit insane, they're just greedy. of course this lawyer lost the case, and he no doubt wanted to win it in court as that would be a huge career boost, reputation would go through the roof for a precedent-establishing suit against vendors of lawfully sold goods. He gambled, using this family's money.

Modern society is largely designed by and for lawyers. That's why they make the big bucks and spend half their time on vacation. I know a really nice lawyer. His kid plays with my son. The guy is genuinely nice, a good guy type, works for an architecture firm. But what does he do all day (when he's not on one of his many family vacations that is)? He makes sure his company is protected from liability, regardless of culpability. He makes sure that if they do something bad, design a roof which falls and crushes the occupants for example, his company and their insurers will not lose millions in court. I honestly don't know how he sleeps at night.

[ranb]

Suppose the lawyer has malpractice insurance that covers this kind of misdeed?

Ranb

[a_canadian]

Hm. I rather doubt this would fall under the banner of malpractice, officially anyway. More like a case of wadda-ya-gonna-do? I'm sure the lawyer was all sad faced and offering hugs, and the family isn't openly saying the lawyer screwed up. Nope, pretty sure this is par of the course under present laws.

[RJT]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[johndoe3]

I think that our Canadian friend hasn't fully considered the policy of 'loser pays' and economic disincentives.

What if a negative outcome was 50% borne by the one who brought the lawsuit and 50% borne by their lawyer? Wouldn't that be the fairest thing to have occur?

If the total cost was borne by the lawyer for the person who brought the suit in civil court, then there wouldn't be any economic disincentive to people bringing frivolous lawsuits--an unintended consequence. They just might find it much harder to find a lawyer to take the case.

As it is, I think the policymakers (legislatures) got it right in having an economic disincentive for the person bring the lawsuit and for their lawyer in a 50-50 arrangement.

What was missed in the comments above is that the lawyer for the family bringing the lawsuit suffers a similar loss to the $200,000 adjudicated to the family bringing the frivolous lawsuit. After all, the lawyer was most likely working on a contingency basis and if they lost, they got nothing except maybe a small initial retainer. Therefore, the losing law firm accumulated both real money spent as well as unpaid billable hours spent on the case that could have been used for paid legal work. If their opportunity cost and expenditures equaled the defense costs, then the legal firm is out $200,000 themselves.

In that case, the 50-50 arrangement of "loser pays" set up by the legislature is working well as planned.

[a_canadian]

johndoe3 sounds an awful lot like a lawyer...

[TROOPER]

The lawyer was wrong to accept the case since there wasn't a shred of culpability. That said, it isn't about culpability, but instead, it's about what a jury says it's about.

I'm glad the judge stuck the bill to the family. However, that is a course of action that is -- and should -- be used sparingly since it creates a 'chill effect' for people who may be afraid to file legitimate lawsuits for when 'big business' becomes puts their respective bottom lines ahead of responsibility.

... but there is a time-and-place for 'loser-pays', and this was nothing more than a money grab, pure-and-simple.

All that said: the lawyer knew it was a 'no-go' from the start, or he/she would've done contingency fees... and the family would be out $0 in the event of a loss.... except that, like I said, the lawyer knew it was a loser of a case and expected payment regardless of the outcome.

I wish this story was more widely distributed since public shaming and actual financial hardship should accompany attempts to illegitimately financially destroy business entities just because someone, somewhere else had something unfavorable befall them. Too often they'll settle and pass the costs on to us. Lucky Gunner was never going to pay that money... WE were. And if we weren't, then Lucky Gunner would've bankrupted. But either way, that money was never going to go from THEM to those people.

[ick]

This was money well spent by the Brady campaign. These people won't have to pay a dime for this.

I am sure the anti's would have taken a judgement in the plaintiff's favor, don't get me wrong, but they knew that would never happen. It was never about MONEY from an award.

Instead the anti's got the headline they wanted.... "Gun manufacturers not just protected by unjust law, but a law that abuses the victims of gun crimes."

Mission accomplished for them. $200,000 for a national headline like this they can TALK ABOUT FOREVER is a bargain. I am certain it will continue to be misrepresented and used to "push" the narrative in their direction.

[renegade]

good

[a_canadian]

Which is 'good'? The tinfoil hat argument or the family losing their shirts for being idiots?

[renegade]

Which is 'good'? The tinfoil hat argument or the family losing their shirts for being idiots?

good that folks who file frivolous lawsuits lose.

[whiterussian1974]

I'm crying tears of blood out of my eyes, and ... wherever, over antis having to pay legal fees for losing a frivolous suit.
(Don Trump reference concerning Fox's Megan Kelly. )