Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: Will Stroh get escape with wallet in Message-ID: <39400004@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 07:27:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.39400004 Posted: Mon Feb 11 07:27:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 04:18:54 EST References: <1240@akgua.UUCP> Lines: 27 Nf-ID: #R:akgua:-124000:uiucdcs:39400004:000:1382 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Feb 11 06:27:00 1985 > The basis for the suit is that the driver was juiced on > Schlitz Malt Liquor ( A Stroh owned brand) and that when > the wreck occurred the 17 year old passenger was killed. > The parents claim (probably among others) is that Stroh should > have placed a warning label on their product about the > dangers of drinking and driving. > -- Bob Brown (rjb@akgua) The legal reasoning behind this case is known as the "theory of the deep pockets" -- that is, one sues the people with lots of money, not the people responsible for the harm. The complainants hope that Strohs will settle out of court for some fraction of $30meg. If the case is actually tried, they still might win; who knows what a jury will do? What they can't do is *lose* anything, since they have undoubtedly hired their lawyer on a contingent-fee basis. The problem is that the plaintiffs can't lose, no matter how ridiculous their suit. I think this needs to be changed. I think that people filing suits of no merit should be liable for damages. In this particular case, I think Strohs should be able to sue for legal fees and damage to their reputation. Most importantly, I think that when frivolous suits are filed on a contingent-fee basis, the *plaintiff's lawyer* should also be liable! *That* will put a damper on the abuse of contingency fees! Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner