• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

sued for stopping illegals

statesman

Shut up woman... get on my horse.
pilot
The way that I read that example is that the looser pays is that how you read it?
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The way that I read that example is that the looser pays is that how you read it?

You shoot some one and get sued. You are the defendant and the guy you shot or his survivors are the plaintiffs. If judge or jury determines you were justified under 776.032 (1) the plaintiff must pay your costs. I looks like you don't have to go to a jury and win, but even if the court issues a directed verdict or grants a motion for summery judgment ( more or less "thrown out" in layman's terms) you still get costs.
 

C420sailor

Former Rhino Bro
pilot
You shoot some one and get sued. You are the defendant and the guy you shot or his survivors are the plaintiffs. If judge or jury determines you were justified under 776.032 (1) the plaintiff must pay your costs. I looks like you don't have to go to a jury and win, but even if the court issues a directed verdict or grants a motion for summery judgment ( more or less "thrown out" in layman's terms) you still get costs.

That wouldn't be a bad thing for ALL lawsuits. Maybe we wouldn't be such a lawsuit happy country?
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
That wouldn't be a bad thing for ALL lawsuits. Maybe we wouldn't be such a lawsuit happy country?

Be careful what you wish for. Loser pays is the rule in the UK. But more often then not, the loser can tap a government fund to pay the defendants costs. So what really has happened there is the government ends up paying the costs of the winning defendant, not the losing plaintiff. Just what we need, another government agency and more taxes to fund outrageous lawsuits.

Actually, in many cases the loser may have to pay costs to the winning defendant in this country. But the judge has to approve the motion and some simply do not. Even when the motion for costs is approved, many plaintiffs just do not pay. Many times they are of modest to no means to begin with. ( Now consider the current adminsitration, the sway of trial lawyers with the DEM party in power and you have a UK style rule sold as tort reform. We would be paying for BS lawsuits. :eek:) The lawsuit was their chance to hit the lottery. So in the end, judgment or not, the defendant gets no money to reimburse himself for the cost of defending himself. Even the plaintiff's attorney frequently get stuck holding the bag when his clients can't pay the costs of their own litigation in the end. Remember, it isn't completely cost free to bring a lawsuit. The lawyer may take a 30% contingency fee if they win, but the client still has to pay for all of his court costs, expert witnesses, investigators, litigation support and depositions regardless of winning or losing.

The problem in this country isn't the relative low cost and easy access to the courts. It is a society that will not accept responsibility for anything, is always looking for the easy buck, and believes it is always some ones fault. It is never "shit happens" for them, unless it is their fault. Sometimes, no one is blame.
 
Top