FWST: HBO Real Sports piece on TCU won't be a good look... for the school or Gary Patterson

[Froglaw]

There are plenty of justified lawsuits but let's not pretend that there aren't gobs of silly lawsuits.

And lawyers need to understand the stress that lawsuits put on good people like GMFP.

My dad was a urologist and was sued by a patient who had undergone a vasectomy; his wife had subsequently become pregnant. My dad was very stressed and upset until the patient eventually found out what they could have figured out before they put my dad through all of that:

I assume that the case was dismissed and your fathers reputation vindicated.

In other words, the judicial system worked and your father had to endure some uncomfortable days.

I get that.

Most lawyers have similar stories regarding false claims. That includes yours truly.

However, our cases are heard and justice prevails by an overwhelming majority.

So the alternative is to put locks on our public courthouses.

What then?

Drunk drivers, child abusers, bad lawyers, bad doctors, bad nursing homes all get a free pass to victimize the very people they were supposed to not harm and to protect?

That would not be a system that I would want to live in and I'm sure your father would not like it either.

 

[MTfrog5]

So again, why is he suing?

 

[Sebastian S]

So again, why is he suing?

He did not break the 40 record at the combine.

Cost him 1 mill

 

[CountryFrog]

I assume that the case was dismissed and your fathers reputation vindicated.

In other words, the judicial system worked and your father had to endure some uncomfortable days.

I get that.

Most lawyers have similar stories regarding false claims. That includes yours truly.

However, our cases are heard and justice prevails by an overwhelming majority.

So the alternative is to put locks on our public courthouses.

What then?

Drunk drivers, child abusers, bad lawyers, bad doctors, bad nursing homes all get a free pass to victimize the very people they were supposed to not harm and to protect?

That would not be a system that I would want to live in and I'm sure your father would not like it either.

These are certainly noble tales of the American judicial system. I'm just not sure how any of it applies to what KL and his lawyers are doing. I don't think anyone is saying that KL should be thrown in jail for his stupid suit or that courts should deny it for being a simple money grab but it's not unreasonable for people on a message board to call it what it is.

 

[BABYFACE]

I hear this view expressed by persons railing against the perceived injustice of lawsuits, until it's their child, wife daughter who was killed by a drunk, raped by a person she trusted, their insurance claim that is denied, etc.

Brown v. Board of education was considered a frivolous lawsuit when it was filed, but who on this forum would argue that "separate but equal" was constitutional under our nation of laws.

I'll put up with the KL's and his legal team so I can bring justice to the victims of drunk drivers, sexual abusers, and companies that think the law does not apply to them.

KL's case will be heard and justice will prevail at the end of the process.

True, but it is still ridiculous that TCU has to go thru this.

It is going to cost a lot of money for justice to prevail. This is the unnecessary part some have a problem with.

How deep the pockets and the ability of the legal team can have just as much impact as justice.

Not every case or cause is noble.

 

[netty2424]

Don’t hurt your vag.

DEAD

 

[netty2424]

For the lawyers, if this case is tried and GP and Co. are held not liable for anything, would GP, or CDC, or anyone else named by KL's attorneys be able to turn around sue KL for any number of reasons, not limited to recovering monies spent on retaining lawyers?

I'm not saying they ever would, but just hypothetically speaking.

 

[Mean Purple]

Independent doctors cleared this player when he was at TCU. He can't blame others for his lack of gain in the pros.

 

[froginaustin]

For the lawyers, if this case is tried and GP and Co. are held not liable for anything, would GP, or CDC, or anyone else named by KL's attorneys be able to turn around sue KL for any number of reasons, not limited to recovering monies spent on retaining lawyers?

I'm not saying they ever would, but just hypothetically speaking.

Hypothetically speaking, to stitch together a plausible set of facts that would result in a successful lawsuit brought by someone on the TCU side (2nd lawsuit) against someone on the KL side in the first lawsuit, over things that happened (or that should have happened but did not) in the first lawsuit (KL v TCU) or before the first lawsuit went to trial or final judgment, after the first lawsuit is over and done, would be incredibly difficult.

Punishing the loser during or at the end of the first lawsuit is more plausible, but still very unlikely.

If the lawsuit was brought and tried in England, the answer might be different. In the English system, the general rule is-- loser pays all lawyers. The "American" rule is that generally everyone pays his own lawyer (with a growing list of exceptions that is still far, far from the scope of the general English rule as I understand it).

A loser-pays-all-lawyers rule really, seriously favors the economically advantaged (an unpleasant side effect of trying to compensate victorious defendants). American lawmakers have never bought in, to arguments for applying the English rule here because it adds a huge disadvantage to the already relatively disadvantaged, and discourages people that might have a real wrong that could be righted from even asking for justice.

If KL's lawsuit is such an absurdity that it should never have been brought, and then after warnings was not dismissed, lawyers and litigants can be sanctioned (but the sanction amounts, even if paid, may not be sufficient to cover the out-of-pocket for the successful defendants because sanctions are generally meant to deter behavior, not compensate a wronged party for his entire expense). Who knows. We may see sanctions motions in KL v TCU one day. I won't hold my breath waiting for sanctions motions to be granted. That doesn't happen much.

 

[froginaustin]

Independent doctors cleared this player when he was at TCU. He can't blame others for his lack of gain in the pros.

He can and he is. Whether or not a fair justice system will ultimately agree with him is another matter.

 

[Froglaw]

Hypothetically speaking, to stitch together a plausible set of facts that would result in a successful lawsuit brought by someone on the TCU side (2nd lawsuit) against someone on the KL side in the first lawsuit, over things that happened (or that should have happened but did not) in the first lawsuit (KL v TCU) or before the first lawsuit went to trial or final judgment, after the first lawsuit is over and done, would be incredibly difficult.

Punishing the loser during or at the end of the first lawsuit is more plausible, but still very unlikely.

If the lawsuit was brought and tried in England, the answer might be different. In the English system, the general rule is-- loser pays all lawyers. The "American" rule is that generally everyone pays his own lawyer (with a growing list of exceptions that is still far, far from the scope of the general English rule as I understand it).

A loser-pays-all-lawyers rule really, seriously favors the economically advantaged (an unpleasant side effect of trying to compensate victorious defendants). American lawmakers have never bought in, to arguments for applying the English rule here because it adds a huge disadvantage to the already relatively disadvantaged, and discourages people that might have a real wrong that could be righted from even asking for justice.

If KL's lawsuit is such an absurdity that it should never have been brought, and then after warnings was not dismissed, lawyers and litigants can be sanctioned (but the sanction amounts, even if paid, may not be sufficient to cover the out-of-pocket for the successful defendants because sanctions are generally meant to deter behavior, not compensate a wronged party for his entire expense). Who knows. We may see sanctions motions in KL v TCU one day. I won't hold my breath waiting for sanctions motions to be granted. That doesn't happen much.

The FW lawsuit filed first by TCU is a Declaratory Judgment action. TCU parties may (not necessarily) recover its attorney's fees.

EDIT:

I'm a little surprised that TCU has not named the SMU defender as a Responsible Third Party. An RTP's actions are submitted to the jury without having to bring that person/organization into the lawsuit as an official party.

Clearly the event that started the injury complained of by Listenbee was committed by SMU's football team.

I'm only half kidding. If I represented TCU (and I do not), I'd seriously take a look at naming SMU as a RTP as a back up strategy at trial. Easy to point to an empty chair and say why isn't SMU here to answer for that egregious play.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

Hypothetically speaking, to stitch together a plausible set of facts that would result in a successful lawsuit brought by someone on the TCU side (2nd lawsuit) against someone on the KL side in the first lawsuit, over things that happened (or that should have happened but did not) in the first lawsuit (KL v TCU) or before the first lawsuit went to trial or final judgment, after the first lawsuit is over and done, would be incredibly difficult.

Punishing the loser during or at the end of the first lawsuit is more plausible, but still very unlikely.

If the lawsuit was brought and tried in England, the answer might be different. In the English system, the general rule is-- loser pays all lawyers. The "American" rule is that generally everyone pays his own lawyer (with a growing list of exceptions that is still far, far from the scope of the general English rule as I understand it).

A loser-pays-all-lawyers rule really, seriously favors the economically advantaged (an unpleasant side effect of trying to compensate victorious defendants). American lawmakers have never bought in, to arguments for applying the English rule here because it adds a huge disadvantage to the already relatively disadvantaged, and discourages people that might have a real wrong that could be righted from even asking for justice.

If KL's lawsuit is such an absurdity that it should never have been brought, and then after warnings was not dismissed, lawyers and litigants can be sanctioned (but the sanction amounts, even if paid, may not be sufficient to cover the out-of-pocket for the successful defendants because sanctions are generally meant to deter behavior, not compensate a wronged party for his entire expense). Who knows. We may see sanctions motions in KL v TCU one day. I won't hold my breath waiting for sanctions motions to be granted. That doesn't happen much.

I once had a lawsuit (very, very briefly) where my client, who was a pedestrian who watched a drunk driver sideswipe a parked car then run a light and broadside the victim’s car, was sued for not warning the victim from a block away in the 3 seconds or so between when he first observed the drunk and when the crash occurred. My motion for sanctions was denied.

 

[RollToad]

I once had a lawsuit (very, very briefly) where my client, who was a pedestrian who watched a drunk driver sideswipe a parked car then run a light and broadside the victim’s car, was sued for not warning the victim from a block away in the 3 seconds or so between when he first observed the drunk and when the crash occurred. My motion for sanctions was denied.

I’m never going outside again.

 

[froginaustin]

I once had a lawsuit (very, very briefly) where my client, who was a pedestrian who watched a drunk driver sideswipe a parked car then run a light and broadside the victim’s car, was sued for not warning the victim from a block away in the 3 seconds or so between when he first observed the drunk and when the crash occurred. My motion for sanctions was denied.

Not surprising. Particularly if an elected judge presided, and particularly if that judge was applying Texas law. Sanctions for a spurious lawsuit are hard, hard, hard to win, even under the federal rules with an arrogant, nasty appointed judge presiding, and even in the teeth of FRCP 11 and the doctrine of a court's inherent authority to police its docket and discipline lawyers practicing before it.

Reference to "FrogLaw" post above-- attorney fees for dec judgment actions are really tough to get, too, in my seat-of-the-pants opinion. Law providing for attorney fees is straightforward, but then read the qualifications and exceptions, and factor in trial court stubbornness in not punishing over aggressive (or just uninformed) lawyering.

Situation is in part the price we pay (and in my opinion, probably worth paying although we can all think of LOTS of situations (and many of us have actually experienced them) that REALLY test the notion of justice behind the idea that courts should be open to everyone regardless of social status or economic circumstances).

 

[Hoosierfrog]

Not true.

Our courts have had civil case filings decreasing over the last 20 years.

Empty argument used by insurance companies demanding "tort" reform in order to deny legitimate claims as a source of increased profits

I have a dislike for insurance companies as anyone, don’t work for one or have any interest in promoting them. However, it is rather funny to hear the pltff bar paint insurance companies as the enemy and are somehow evil for wanting to remain in business by making a profit. Lawyers seem to think it is the job of insurance companies to pay every strip mall atty their initial exorbitant demand so the lawyer can make a profit. So trying to fleece the insurance company for the highest dollar amount isn’t trying to increase your profit. Pot meet kettle. I think it would be great if insurance companies did go out of business, then there would be no settlements and lawyers would have to try every case and try to collect from the real negligent party.

Playing the Founding Fathers Card sounds great. It probably was when we were talking stolen pigs, etc. The whole thing has gotten so out of hand that I doubt the founding fathers would recognize the system.

 

[Hoosierfrog]

I assume that the case was dismissed and your fathers reputation vindicated.

In other words, the judicial system worked and your father had to endure some uncomfortable days.

I get that.

Most lawyers have similar stories regarding false claims. That includes yours truly.

However, our cases are heard and justice prevails by an overwhelming majority.

So the alternative is to put locks on our public courthouses.

What then?

Drunk drivers, child abusers, bad lawyers, bad doctors, bad nursing homes all get a free pass to victimize the very people they were supposed to not harm and to protect?

That would not be a system that I would want to live in and I'm sure your father would not like it either.

Here’s an idea, codify the system - broken arm you get $X to $X depending on severity, death $X to $X to $X depending on aggregiousness of the circumstances. That way we don’t have profiteering by insurance companies or lawyers!

 

[PurplFrawg]

I was listening to a couple of lawyers and a district judge talking about Voir Dire. They all recalled hearing of good old country lawyers telling the judge, "Your honor, I have no doubt that the good citizens of this county are all honorable and would serve as fair and impartial jurors. I'll just take the first 12 names on the list." They all laughed and said they'd heard the same story, but none had ever had the nerve to try it in the real world. Any of you counselors think that would be a good strategy?

 

[Chico Dusty]

He posted on his IG - “they effed me up for life and I’m the bad guy”. What a clown

 

[RollToad]

He posted on his IG - “they effed me up for life and I’m the bad guy”. What a clown

scheiss that [ Arschloch].

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

I was listening to a couple of lawyers and a district judge talking about Voir Dire. They all recalled hearing of good old country lawyers telling the judge, "Your honor, I have no doubt that the good citizens of this county are all honorable and would serve as fair and impartial jurors. I'll just take the first 12 names on the list." They all laughed and said they'd heard the same story, but none had ever had the nerve to try it in the real world. Any of you counselors think that would be a good strategy?

I’ve sorta done that in justice court a couple of times, but would never try it in district court.