Should people be able to sue public institutions?

I always had mixed feelings on this because of who ends up paying the bill. I've seen this a lot when people sue school districts or public universities because of the actions of someone employed there. They also sue that individual, but it seems they go after the institution because it has deeper pockets though less blame. But when you sue the school district, aren't you basically taking money away from every taxpayer? Certainly steps should be taken to remove the at fault employee or at least prevent more harm from being done, but what good comes from suing the school? Don't you just end up taking money and resources away from the students?

People demand JUSTICE and EASY HANDOUTS schools be damnedspazzx625

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]People demand JUSTICE and EASY HANDOUTS schools be damnedsonicare

I hate the sue culture we live in now. **** you lawyers.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]People demand JUSTICE and EASY HANDOUTS schools be damnedEngrish_Major

Yes, people should be able to sue government entities. If those entities are found to be liable for an unlawful loss, then those entities should pay reparations to those who deserve them. thegerg

Suing a corporation is basically the same thing - they just pass the cost of any legal judgements straight on to consumers in the form of higher prices. It's not like the CEO takes a pay cut or something.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"]Yes, people should be able to sue government entities. If those entities are found to be liable for an unlawful loss, then those entities should pay reparations to those who deserve them. thegerg

i don't know, maybe if people weren't douchebags that sue evrything to get a few bucks, the way things are now, no.

I think so, but the whole process of what can be sued for and why needs to be fleshed out better in the legal system. As is there is too many things that people can be sued for that are absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical. Which only bogs down the court systems and costs people an unncessary amount of money.

I think so, but the whole process of what can be sued for and why needs to be fleshed out better in the legal system. As is there is too many things that people can be sued for that are absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical. Which only bogs down the court systems and costs people an unncessary amount of money.

[QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"]

I think so, but the whole process of what can be sued for and why needs to be fleshed out better in the legal system. As is there is too many things that people can be sued for that are absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical. Which only bogs down the court systems and costs people an unncessary amount of money.

thegerg

This is somewhat unrelated to the original topic, but I dont like that employers can be sued for the actions of their employees. It's one thing if an employer is facilitating deletrious behavior or covering up bad actions. That's fine that they can be liable for that, but I dont like the fact that you can be sued just because an employee of yours - acting on their own volition - commits a misdeed. I am a part owner of a company and we're always worried about stuff like that. For instance, if one of my employees gets in a car accident while on company time, we are liable. That doesnt seem fair to me. We do our due diligence when we hire people, but obviously we dont have the resources to do extensive pschiatric and criminal background checks to make sure people are who they say they are. Then, to complicate matters, you have all these people who say its unfair to screen prospective employees. That it is an invasion of their privacy to ask them about drug use or personal habits. So you're liable for their behavior but you are not allowed to gather any information about their prior behavior. How is that fair?

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Actually, there are very few things people can be sued for. OP is talking about only one here anyway, financial loss.thegerg

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"] In that particular case he is suing for financial loss. They promised him money, and their actions caused him to not get that money. I can't sue you for just anything. I can't sue you, for example, simply because you're wearing a red shirt and I don't like red.

thegerg

INTENT is important.

Suing a corporation is basically the same thing - they just pass the cost of any legal judgements straight on to consumers in the form of higher prices. It's not like the CEO takes a pay cut or something.

Jackc8

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"] But obviously in that particular case, he was committing a felony. He was threatening their life and they told him what he wanted to hear so they could escape with their lives. You could sue me for wearing a red shirt because it affects your ability to enjoy life and thus has caused he irreparable harm. Perhaps my shirt triggered an allergy and caused you pain and suffering. All of these reason are absurd, but people have sued for less and won.StRaItJaCkEt36

INTENT is important.

Intent has nothing to do with negligence. Negligence is just a failure to do or not do what the reasonable person would.

Intentional torts (battery, assault, conversion, etc) do not usually fall under respondeat superior (where employers are responsible for the actions of employees that are within the scope of employment) unless it is a policy of the place of business to commit such acts.

In terms of an employer being sued, the employee who committed tort does not usually does not have the means to pay the judgment against them, while the business usually does. I know it sounds unfair to some, but should the injured party really not be able to collect for their damages? While at times tort law seems like people are just out to get money at its base its just about putting the injured party in the place they were before the tort occurred.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"] In that particular case he is suing for financial loss. They promised him money, and their actions caused him to not get that money. I can't sue you for just anything. I can't sue you, for example, simply because you're wearing a red shirt and I don't like red.

thegerg

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

This is somewhat unrelated to the original topic, but I dont like that employers can be sued for the actions of their employees. It's one thing if an employer is facilitating deletrious behavior or covering up bad actions. That's fine that they can be liable for that, but I dont like the fact that you can be sued just because an employee of yours - acting on their own volition - commits a misdeed. I am a part owner of a company and we're always worried about stuff like that. For instance, if one of my employees gets in a car accident while on company time, we are liable. That doesnt seem fair to me. We do our due diligence when we hire people, but obviously we dont have the resources to do extensive pschiatric and criminal background checks to make sure people are who they say they are. Then, to complicate matters, you have all these people who say its unfair to screen prospective employees. That it is an invasion of their privacy to ask them about drug use or personal habits. So you're liable for their behavior but you are not allowed to gather any information about their prior behavior. How is that fair?

thegerg

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

This is somewhat unrelated to the original topic, but I dont like that employers can be sued for the actions of their employees. It's one thing if an employer is facilitating deletrious behavior or covering up bad actions. That's fine that they can be liable for that, but I dont like the fact that you can be sued just because an employee of yours - acting on their own volition - commits a misdeed. I am a part owner of a company and we're always worried about stuff like that. For instance, if one of my employees gets in a car accident while on company time, we are liable. That doesnt seem fair to me. We do our due diligence when we hire people, but obviously we dont have the resources to do extensive pschiatric and criminal background checks to make sure people are who they say they are. Then, to complicate matters, you have all these people who say its unfair to screen prospective employees. That it is an invasion of their privacy to ask them about drug use or personal habits. So you're liable for their behavior but you are not allowed to gather any information about their prior behavior. How is that fair?

sonicare

In that case his employer wouldn't be liable for him getting into a fist fight since he is acting outside the scope of his employment as battering people is not part of a mason's job.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]People demand JUSTICE and EASY HANDOUTS schools be damnedsonicare

Yes, but people will sue for stupid reasons just to get money.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] When one does business with an entity they are usually doing business with the entity (corporation, govt. agency, etc.) and not simply an employee of that entity. If my apartment building collapses tomorrow and I break my legs I'm not going to sue the mason that poured a crappy foundation, I am going to sue the property management company with whom I have been doing business.thegerg

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Yes. You can sue an organization if an agent acting on behalf of that organization causes a loss.thegerg

I think that if you successfully defend yourself in a lawsuit that you should be able to sue the plaintiff's attorney for loss. Since they unjustly took you to court and subjected you to the stress and monetary loss of defending yourself. If we hold other careers to some standard, should we not hold trial lawyers to some? Trouble it that they write the laws and govern themselves so the system really is designed by lawyers for lawyers.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Yes. You can sue an organization if an agent acting on behalf of that organization causes a loss.thegerg

And fistfighting is not in the comission of his duties as its outside the scope of employmeny, therefore there is no liability on the employer's end. And one does not sue for something as general as "losses". Losses are merely the damages plead during a lawsuit. Most likely someone will be suing for a tort or breach of contract which are the causes of action.

I think that if you successfully defend yourself in a lawsuit that you should be able to sue the plaintiff's attorney for loss. Since they unjustly took you to court and subjected you to the stress and monetary loss of defending yourself. If we hold other careers to some standard, should we not hold trial lawyers to some? Trouble it that they write the laws and govern themselves so the system really is designed by lawyers for lawyers.

sonicare

Lawyers that often bring frivilous suits often loose and go out of business, and if its really absurd they'll be repremanded by the bar. Lawyers are just used as tools as people usually do not have the knowledge to represent themselves in court, so its the plaintiffs bringing suit that one should blame.

Tort law also doesn't have a high win rate for plaintiffs, and even in things like medical malpractice there is a tribunal in most states that decide the merit of the case before its brought to court. If they find it without merit then usually the plaintiff is required to post a bond paying for defendant's legal fees.