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