I wish I knew more about the fight about protecting employers against lawsuits.

[LAS14]

Because, from the tiny bit I get on TV, I'm sympathetic to the GOP position. I've seen too much insane money grabbing on the part of lawyers engaged in truly frivolous lawsuits. In fact, after three years, we finally won a lawsuit "by summary judgement." That means the opposing party had no legal grounds to bring the suit. (Not sure that's the exact phrasing.)

For sure I want workers to be able to force employers to protect them. But in this age of learning as we go, and knowing what a lot of lawyers are up to, I do want employers to be able to keep their workers on the job without fear of doing some damn thing wrong in this age of not knowing who the hell knows what we should be doing anyway.

NOTE. I said I wished I knew more about the fight. I didn't say I was siding with the GOP. Can anyone explain some of the subtleties? Are there any protections against frivolous lawsuits in the Dem version of the bill?

TIA
LAS

[Hoyt]

1. I'd like to see how GOPers will define reasonable efforts/standards to protect

workers and customers.

[coti]

2. Summary judgment just means that the judge determined that, even assuming the truth of the facts as

the losing side sees them, the law doesn't support their case. It's a legal determination. Most often summary judgments are made in favor of defendants, and after it's been shown that, even if everything the plaintiff alleges is true, the defendant isn't legally responsible for damages.

[ret5hd]

3. Well, you sure gobbled up the gop views on frivolous...

lawsuits. Maybe we should make some laws saying that a lawsuit has to first be looked at by a judge or a panel of good citizens before being looked at by...
A judge or a panel of good citizens?

[LAS14]

8. Lawsuits are reviewed by judges early in the game. That's why...

... some are dismissed as frivolous. I just think that in this COVID era, with the lack of clarity about what is required, there may be a deluge of frivolous lawsuits. Why do you say I "gobbled up the gop views on frivolous lawsuits?" I tried to make it as clear as possible that I wanted to know the dem position and the subtleties of the bill.

[Demsrule86]

4. Seriously? No to the GOP position...what kind of safety standard will we get if there is

no liability?

[Demsrule86]

5. My daughter had two broken ankles...one was hairline the other a bad fracture...dumb ass

doctor put the cast on but did not set the ankle. She needed surgery,pins all of it at 22...missed a year of college. We couldn't sue as we live in a tort reform state so unless you are dead forget about suing...it cost us thousands. The doctor has had lots of issues and would not be practicing in any state that didn't have such reform...it is a very bad idea to protect companies, doctors etc from lawsuits which often save lives.

[abqtommy]

6. IMO tRUMP, McConnel, reTHUGS and cultists want to normalize the concept of immunity

so they can apply it to themselves. That's NOT gonna happen!

[Nature Man]

7. Tort reform is a right wing hardon

do you have any examples of "frivolous lawsuits" not interpreted through right wing rage sources?

[LAS14]

9. Yeah, my own experience. Dismissed after several years and lots of money by "summary judgement." nt

[ret5hd]

10. So the system worked...we must kill it!

[Nature Man]

11. what case was it?

what state/county/jurisdiction, whatever?

Who was the presiding judge? Who were any of the attorneys?