Is this the proper way to treat VW customers?

[BlueR32]

When there is a documented manufacturing defect should the manufacturer pay or the customer be abused?

VW Atlas Settlement Ends Class Action Suit Over Alleged Water Pump Defect

A Volkswagen settlement ends a class action lawsuit over allegedly defective water pumps in 2018-2022 Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport vehicles.

www.classaction.org

 

[Crasher]

And you wonder why European companies are reluctant about selling in the USA. My product liability insurance for our mail order business, precludes us from selling in America because of the potential legal expenses. In the UK, America as an individual or business could be viewed as a Vexatious litigant.

 

[Spacewalker]

3 weeks ago I vist LV....... car behind me hit me on RED light, we simple pull over, not a big damage, bumper not even off etc.

we was wating for Police and Medic etc talking each other and ask if he / she is ok on sidle walk ...... and belive me or not (US guys propably understand this) , 5 random people stop , asking me if need help with law.
even when paramedic arrived, police did paper work , they still stopping and asking - do you need help, pictures, law , maybe call someone .....
in EU - you can die at car , and people will not even pull over to look if you ok - they simple look and say - he is fine, not a big damage"

so LAW is LAW , but way to get your rights - seems in US is easier ?

 

[BlueR32]

The U.S. is considered by many as "The Land of Litigation". Here you can become an instant millionaire by being negligent. This is why you see so many lawyers and foreign lawyers relocate to the U.S.

I personally know of one young attorney who became a millionaire on one case 50 years ago. You don't need to do many multi-million dollar liability caes to become a very wealthy attorney in the U.S. In many but not all cases you will find that it wasn't a matter of properly compensating those who were injured, it's a case of convincing gullible jurors that anyone with means should be sued to enrich the injured AND the lawyers FAR beyond reason. In my opinion many of these cases are abuse of the judicial system and outright fraud. It's disgraceful and costly to everyone in the U.S. except those benefitting from Jackpot Justice.

YMMV

 

[Uwe]

In my opinion many of these cases are abuse of the judicial system and outright fraud. It's disgraceful and costly to everyone in the U.S. except those benefitting from Jackpot Justice.

And in these cases, the plaintiff has nothing to lose because his lawyers take the case on contingency, meaning they only get paid if there's a settlement. The lawyers don't have anything to lose either, except their time.

Do you know what prevents this sort of abuse in much of the rest of the world? If you sue someone for damages and you lose, you must pay their legal expenses. That makes potential plaintiffs and their lawyers think twice before they sue.

-Uwe-

 

[Crasher]

I think "no win, no fee" should not be allowed.

 

[Uwe]

I think "no win, no fee" should not be allowed.

Since that deal/relationship is strictly between the plaintiff and his lawyer, I'm not sure how it would be possible to regulate it. How would you verify how many hours that plaintiff's lawyer invested in the case, or what his hourly rate should be?

IMO, the right solution is the one that exists in many countries: If you sue somebody and lose, you pay the defendant's legal expenses.

-Uwe-

 

[BlueR32]

IMO, the right solution is the one that exists in many countries: If you sue somebody and lose, you pay the defendant's legal expenses.

-Uwe-

IMO, the correct solution is to NOT allow frivolus cases into the court system at all. It's unfair to everyone except those who benefit from Jackpot Justice. It's time to again acknowledge PERSONAL responsibility and stop rewarding negligent and dangerous personal behavior.

 

[Uwe]

IMO, the correct solution is to NOT allow frivolus cases into the court system at all.

In principle, I agree, but who decides whether a case is frivolous or has merit?

-Uwe-

 

[BlueR32]

In principle, I agree, but who decides whether a case is frivolous or has merit?

-Uwe-

A judge and THAT is the conflict of interest problem. In the U.S. judicial system plaintiffs who's cases are dismissed as frivolous must pay the defendant's legal expenses. The conflict is judges are on the same team generative income from frivolous lawsuits. Most judges are not going to boot frivolous cases unless the case is so blatantly absurd that they would be sanctioned if they didn't dismiss it. Otherwise the income machine plays on and everyone pays for this abuse of the U.S. judicial system - that is FOR GREAT PROFIT for the litigant and defense attorneys.

 

[Uwe]

The conflict is judges are on the same team generative income from frivolous lawsuits.

How so? I mean other than ensuring that their docket remains full and they don't get laid off for lack of work?

-Uwe-

 

[BlueR32]

How so? I mean other than ensuring that their docket remains full and they don't get laid off for lack of work?

-Uwe-

Because the judges are not necessarily on the bench for more than 4-6 years depending and then back in private practice. They want to maintain the cash cow frivolous lawsuits so that they too can cash in while protecting the income of their peers. It's a total scam and abuse of the judicial system in most cases IMO.