The first thing I would do is KILL all the lawyers.

This makes me sick. You wonder why our economy hasnt completely disintegrated. Shell could be using this money to hire more people, or explore for more resources, but no, they have to defend a lawsuit because an independently owned Shell gas station sold tickets to the event. We need to seriously change the way lawsuits are filed in this country. I say, if a person brings a suit deemed frivilous against someone, if they lose, they should be liable for all court costs on BOTH SIDES. Then people would have second thoughts about this Opportunistic, greedy bullshit. I hope they lose and get nothing. NADA, zilch. I am so angry, I dont care if they lost family members. Enough is enough. *breathe* rant........over.

Almost agree with you.

Almost.

The court system should be open to everyone. To penalize someone because a ruling went against them would prevent a lot of people from filing suits with merit.

For example, if I am wronged by a business, and I go to court seeking justice, and I lose, I could be out some major dough! I might just be scared enough of that eventuality to not sue. Is that right? If I have a case, but I don't know for sure what the outcome is (no one really does, do they?), then I would stay away . . .

The problem is the juries. There needs to be a way to prevent twelve people too dumb to avoid jury duty from awarding Grandma Moses $150 million because she poured coffee all over her genitals . . .

Juries are quick to award damages in outrageous amounts, and because it's "corporate money," well, don't those big companies have the cash lying around? What's $50 million to Shell? Nada! Drop in the bucket . . .

Leave the courts as a source of justice for the average Joe. But overhaul the jury system!

Point taken Graham. I just hate frivilous lawsuits, or in this case, a Lawyer tainting a legitimate lawsuit with his true intentions. I am suprised a judge allowed this to be added in. I think we somehow need to put common sense back into our legal system. Maybe the juries are a good start.

Agree, although I knew a couple that died in that fire, and pass by the site of that fire every day, I think it's BS to sue Shell. If this is the case then I am going to sue Shell for it's 87 octane gas not boosting my engine's performance , and others named in the suit like Anheuser-Busch because they don't provide a high enough percentage of alcohol in their beers. Let's see what else....I wont touch the tobacco issue, Come on, where does it stop.

How does selling (or giving) tickets away make one responsible for deaths an the event? I mean, its not like the shell station used its pumps to douse the place in gas before it caught fire, right?

So, what happens if I buy concert tickets and then sell them on eBay to some kid who gets trampled at the show; am I responsible for his death? What about you ticket brokers out there (socal) are you guys responsible for someone dying at an event you sold...its your business after all?

Sorry to be insensitive but sometimes 'casa pasa' and people die. Its unfortunate that greedy lawyers and stupid judges/jurys allow this crap to happen and take the justice system away from people who really need it.

The lawsuit also names the club owners, Anheuser-Busch Inc., the town of West Warwick and American Foam Corp.

Wow they did list Anheuser-Busch.
So i guess it's there fault for not having flame retardant beer?

What needs to happen with state courts is the same thing they do in federal court. If you file a federal case and it's ruled as frivolous, YOU PAY THE COURT COSTS. If you think you have a REAL case that needs hearing, then go for it, but if you just want $$ and it gets thrown out, you're broke.

Yep. Limiting the amounts of punitive damages in cases would make sense as well. We are already doing some of this in Texas. Maybe there needs to be some sort of entity to judge whether or not a case has any merit at all. If it is deemed frivolous its over.

I asked my dad about this since he's really high up for Shell. He told me this:

Why not instead of limiting punitive damages, award rediculous amounts? But, instead of awarding the "victim", give that money to the courts and to lower our taxes. It still sucks for whoever is getting sued, but this way justice can be done and people can't turn bad luck into good luck.

On a related note, why do lawyers get to charge 40% to 50% of awards? In any other practice this would be extortion! I'm all for them making good money if they work hard, but that much seems rediculous.

Well, Shell and Anheuser-Busch both arelarge companies that are (although very distantly) attached to the incident. They have deep pockets, and so you can get more money by suing them than by just suing the owner of the Shell Station where the tickets were sold. (Not that I think Shell or AB should be sued).

I'm kinda surprised American Foam has been named. Yes, the foam insulation in the club was manufactured by AF...but the company announced (not long after the incident) that the foam purchased and used by the Club owners was never designed to be used as sound insulation. The club owners purchased the Packing Foam (which is flammable) and used it in a manner which it was not designed, nor ever intended, to be used. Why should AF be hekld responsible for the customers misuse of a product?

Suing AF over this is like someone replacing their engine Oil with soda, and then suing Coca-Cola because their engine seized.

Hmmm....that's not a bad idea.
Where's my 2-liter

That makes no sense at all.

Have you ever been through a selection process as a potential juror? When they have their little Q&A session with everyone, watch them scribble notes. If you have a college degree, you can pretty much count on going home. The lawyers *want* the dumbest people. They *want* the most racially sympathetic to their clients. If there is an institution more discriminitory than jury selection in existence today, I wonder what it could be? This reflects my experience, yous may vary.

Have you ever been through a selection process as a potential juror? When they have their little Q&A session with everyone, watch them scribble notes. If you have a college degree, you can pretty much count on going home. The lawyers *want* the dumbest people. They *want* the most racially sympathetic to their clients. If there is an institution more discriminitory than jury selection in existence today, I wonder what it could be? This reflects my experience, yous may vary.[/QB][/QUOTE]
You aint kidding! I could never be on a jury (turned out three times) because my step father is a police officer. I will side with the cops 99% of the time. The first time I told them immediately because my job had no compensation and I stodd to lose mucho money if I had to serve on a jury for a week or longer. The 2nd and 3rd times I wanted to serve because my job paid me anyway if I had to serve, So it was like having paid days off. So when asked if I could be impartial I said yes. They asked questions, I answered, still turned down, they ended chosing like 9 blacks, three white women. The case turned out to be a female african-american drug dealer who got busted for the 500 ft within a school thingie. She got off. You do the math.

Anyway, things need to change, this lawsuit has gone from trying to help the families of the victoms, to being frivilous and a potential nightmare for our justice system and our corporate structure.

Did you also know that Lawyers are starting to bring questionable personal injury suits against people's homeowners insurance, when the alleged offense happened nowhere near the home?

This lawyer in Philly is representing a girl who got hammered (19 yrs old) and ended up having sex with the guy she was with. When she woke up she decided she made a mistake and brought charged of date-rape against the guy. The case was dismissed, but now they are bringing a civil suit against the guy. he has nothing, so they are suing his parents homeowners. If this goes in thier favor, what will this do to homeowners premiums in this country. ALL LAWYERS ARE SCUMBAGS.

You aint kidding! I could never be on a jury (turned out three times) because my step father is a police officer. I will side with the cops 99% of the time. The first time I told them immediately because my job had no compensation and I stodd to lose mucho money if I had to serve on a jury for a week or longer. The 2nd and 3rd times I wanted to serve because my job paid me anyway if I had to serve, So it was like having paid days off. So when asked if I could be impartial I said yes. They asked questions, I answered, still turned down, they ended chosing like 9 blacks, three white women. The case turned out to be a female african-american drug dealer who got busted for the 500 ft within a school thingie. She got off. You do the math.

Anyway, things need to change, this lawsuit has gone from trying to help the families of the victoms, to being frivilous and a potential nightmare for our justice system and our corporate structure.

Did you also know that Lawyers are starting to bring questionable personal injury suits against people's homeowners insurance, when the alleged offense happened nowhere near the home?

This lawyer in Philly is representing a girl who got hammered (19 yrs old) and ended up having sex with the guy she was with. When she woke up she decided she made a mistake and brought charged of date-rape against the guy. The case was dismissed, but now they are bringing a civil suit against the guy. he has nothing, so they are suing his parents homeowners. If this goes in thier favor, what will this do to homeowners premiums in this country. ALL LAWYERS ARE SCUMBAGS. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Why not? Punitive damages are intended to punish or penalize the defendant when found guilty. I don't think it's right that the plantiff actually benefits from the case. Covering their costs and compensating for damages is a must, but then you have a gap. Sometimes the defendant needs "to be punished", but why let the plantiff make huge gains? Why not apply that difference to lowering my taxes?

Same story with legalization of drugs... Why should I pay for someone else's destructive drug habbit? Why not legalize it, and let them pay my taxes?

Because then you have 12 jurors who think, "hey, if we REALLY screw him with punitive damages, WE win!" It would make the situation that much worse.

That's a good point. But, if you don't reward the judges or jurors, it could work. I mean, the jurors don't benefit directly - and usually judges get to enforce the penalties anyway, right?

It's really far from a perfect solution, but I still don't think it's right to let someone benefit from "justice". It's just too bad people can't put aside selfish ambitions to do what is right - of course we probably wouldn't be having this conversation if that ever happened.