Reply #73: The influence of the tort reform movement...

[Whiskeytide]

... is strong in this one, Obiwan. I'll concede that, once in a blue moon, a plaintiff in a lawsuit gets more than is deserved, and that sometimes plaintiffs are in it for the money. In 25 years of doing this, I've run up against this perhaps 4 or 5 times. I have been involved in probably more than 4,000 cases - from both the plaintiff and defendant sides - so I'll take a .4% failure rate on any system and call it pretty damn successful. Tinkering with that system to try and eradicate those minor aberrations is folly. That's how you know that tort reform efforts are not really intended to address fraudulent claims (because you can't hope to do that) - instead, its intended to close the courthouse doors to ALL claims, especially the legitimate ones they fear so much.

And it has worked. I can assure you that the instances of plaintiffs getting much less than they deserve is much, much more common. In fact, it is probably the norm at this point.

As for the $35,000 amount... I don't know if its low or not. So much goes into valuing a claim that its hopeless to debate it without more details. If Cain pulled out his black walnuts, physically assaulted the woman, and threatened her job security if she refused his advances, then it's probably low. If he made one lewd comment, something like "I'm developing a "69-69-69" tax plan just for you, baby - I call it the Anaconda Initiative", then maybe its about right. We'll probably never know.