Or rather, what is in it for them? Why would they allow frivolous lawsuits or bogus cases any consideration? I understand a lawyer might defend clients for the paycheck or recognition for winning an absurd case. I can see how a plaintiff or defendant would like to cash in on or weasel through a loophole, but what exactly does the judge have to gain?
I can鈥檛 imagine it would be a shining career move to decide McDonald鈥檚 coffee is so hot that it warrants millions to a clumsy individual. Perhaps a jury decided on this case. I don鈥檛 remember. For that matter, are jurors selectively bred and chosen for their deranged rationale?
There are numerous cases to cite examples from: the thief who sues the homeowner for injuries sustained while breaking and entering, the drug trafficker who is pardoned and apologized to because of improper arrest procedures, or how about the killer who is released because they claimed insanity. Couldn鈥檛 we reason this defense for all crimes? Of course they鈥檙e insane, they senselessly murdered someone!
Our laws are open to far too much interpretation, and it seems that too many people exploit this.
That is probably enough ranting for one question. Consider all but the title question rhetorical if you like.
What is in it for the judge?What do judges have to gain by legitimizing nonsense claims?
Unfortunately, the answers are not always as easy as they seem. Judges make the common law, as opposed to the legislated law. That is, Judges interpret what they believe are the appropriate "gap fillers" between the existing laws.
Take, for instance, the McDonalds case. McDonalds did not have a $2.9 Million judgment (or one day's U.S. coffee sales for McDonalds) issued against them because some unfortunate older lady spilled coffee between her legs. They received that huge judgment against them because they failed to respond to the lawsuit, and later failed to respond to requests to respond and/or appear in Court. The multi-million dollar award was later reduced to $640,000.
So, again, to answer your question: Judges seek to find the truth AS APPLIED TO THE EXISTING LAWS. If you do not like Judges decisions, change your Senators and Representatives.
Good Luck!What do judges have to gain by legitimizing nonsense claims?
Badge and snow are probably both right
njyogi, I named cases based on memory, and refuse to research them to prove points to you. They were only examples to help clarify the primary question. Why would I bother asking questions if I knew it all? I asked the question for an answer, not to be insulted
Report Abuse
Unfortunately I am new and chose a best answer before adding additional details. I wanted to add to the question and respond to the responses. In particular I wanted to express how much of a tool niyog is for bothering to add his comment here. I guess it's easy enough to gather anyway. Oh well
Report Abuse
What do judges have to gain by legitimizing nonsense claims?
It's all about politics and getting their 15 minutes of fame.
This is part of the reason insurance cost have skyrocketed. Law suits that are so full of b/s and undeserving people making bank on them.
I think its all a big game. Judges started out as lawyers and enjoy providing an arena for current lawyers to make money. The whole legal system needs to revamped. right now justice is the reward for the person who has the most money to pay the lawyers.What do judges have to gain by legitimizing nonsense claims?
You sound like an obnoxious drunk guy on a barstool who is ranting and raving about stuff you know absolutely nothing about. This drug dealer who is apologized to--what's his name? where did this take place? and the injured burglar who sues the homeower--which court was that case brought in? did the burglar win? what was the date of that ruling? Yes, there was an old lady who burned herself on McDonald's coffee, which was served at just under the boililng point. She filed a lawsuit and won some money, the exact amount was not made public because she took a settlement in exchange for McDonalds dropping its appeal. Yyes, the case was decided by a jury but you weren't there in the jury room, you don't have all the facts they had, so maybe you don't know everything. If you really feel so strongly about judges, maybe you might turn off Fox News for once and read up on a subject before you claim to know it all. Some day you might have your arm sliced off by a the machine you operate down at the factory and your ability to have food on the table and shoes on your children's feet might depend on a jury looking fairly at your tale of woe, and I hope you get jurors who don't act like know-it-alls who say that guy deserves to have his arm sliced off. Oh, what's in it for the judge? You probably won't understand this but judges are human and not all are great but hopefully most of them try to be fair.
planet hollywood
