pqr Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Tort reform refers to blatantly ridiculous law suits brought about by unscrupulous attorneys. When a thief sues a homeowner because the thief was hurt during the home invasion, there is need for tort reform, don't you think? There is no way this would be permissable under the law. Unclean hands doctrine prevents that. This is part of the spiel put out by "tort reform" advocates who work for the insurance lobby. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify where possible and respectfully disagree with some of the contentions raised in your thoughtful post. All the best, elizabeth You mean never happen like this: http://www.wisn.com/r/9950016/detail.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-02-25/news/0302250038_1_harris-family-harris-family-harris-death http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-virginia-beach/only-america-burglar-sues-victim-from-jail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share Posted March 28, 2011 http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06/judge-dismisses-burglars-lawsuit/ Well, I only looked up your first one, but it looks like it was properly dismissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06/judge-dismisses-burglars-lawsuit/ Well, I only looked up your first one, but it looks like it was properly dismissed. The issue is not that it was dismissed but rather that any "lawyer" would bring it up to begin with. Had the defendant been found guilty, obviously something that his lawyer believed possible, then we make Aggie's case don't we? Further the statement was "There is no way this would be permissable under the law. Unclean hands doctrine prevents that. This is part of the spiel put out by "tort reform advocates who work for the insurance lobby." Obviously it WAS permissable under the law and the statement was wrong. It is also just because of this type of stupidity that many state legislatures have passed the "Castle Doctrine" which protects a homeowner from being sued by a criminal in the event that the homeowner uses force to protect himself and his family. Even legislatures have recognized Aggie's point. Edited March 28, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) The issue is not that it was dismissed but rather that any "lawyer" would bring it up to begin with. Had the defendant been found guilty, obviously something that his lawyer believed possible, then we make Aggie's case don't we? Further the statement was "There is no way this would be permissable under the law. Unclean hands doctrine prevents that. This is part of the spiel put out by "tort reform advocates who work for the insurance lobby." Obviously it WAS permissable under the law and the statement was wrong. It is also just because of this type of stupidity that many state legislatures have passed the "Castle Doctrine" which protects a homeowner from being sued by a criminal in the event that the homeowner uses force to protect himself and his family. Even legislatures have recognized Aggie's point. The castle doctrine is far more subtle than you indicate and certainly does NOT protect homeowners from civil liability to date. Go to findlaw for better information on this very, very tenous development . On the other hand if people want advice from non lawyers on the law go for it. You will get exactly the quality of rigor you deserve. Edited March 28, 2011 by elizabeth better use of my time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.