Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
THe profitable suit idea was included in what the guy I spoke with was tlakign about. What do you find objectionabel about that? If you make a mistake that kills a 40 year old provider for a family why should you not pay for it? Why should you get off th ehook as long as it wan't gross negligence (whatever that is; I suppose you would let the doctors decide what that means?)
You can say what you want, but it is a jury that awards the cash, not the lawyers.
As to other industries, you should ask people that make products what their standard is. It's called strict liability. So yes, other industries face similarly long (or longer) odds.
Our system is not perfect, and lawyers should shoulder their share of blame, but as to malpractice suits, the guy was right: the biggest cause of such suits is malpractice.
|
The problem is how outrageously large the awards they can be and how much in annual premiums doctors have to pay as a result.
Furthermore, what really is the most expensive end result of malpractice suits is it results in defensive medicine.