Quantcast

Should the loser in a civil lawsuit have to pay court costs?

Fef 2007/06/25 17:49:27
Yes
No
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Some argue that forcing the loser to pay court costs will discourage frivolous lawsuits, like the case just thrown out by a judge. A plaintiff sued a dry cleaner $54 Million for losing his pants. Currently, you can counter-sue to reclaim these costs.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • jackrorabbit 2007/06/26 14:32:41
    Yes
    jackrorabbit
    +3
    And the other sides attorney fees. I think that all attorney fees
    should be seen so that people can see just how much they make as a
    percentage of the "gain" that the winner actually gets.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • barkbark-247 2008/08/08 17:11:07
    Yes
    barkbark-247
    Yes.....
  • Cacheman 2008/08/05 16:04:26
    Yes
    Cacheman
    +2
    i think so
  • viper4358 2008/02/01 17:55:47
    Yes
    viper4358
    +2
    Quit tying up the courts with frivilous lawsiuts. I want my tax dollars spent more wisely. Judges who hear those ridiculous cases should lose their bench!
  • mk, Smartass Oracle 2007/11/15 15:03:20
  • KGW 2007/10/28 18:35:09
  • Albert 2007/09/23 20:49:25 (edited)
    Yes
    Albert
    +1
    Whomever is the plaintiff and brings the case to the presence of a judge is responsible for all filing fees, and expenses related to presenting the case. So whoever ends up losing the case, defendant or plaintiff they should be liable for the costs of litigating the case to the court.
  • Michael 2007/06/29 20:17:15
    Yes
    Michael
    +1
    Maybe the judge was also superman! Valuable/Irreplaceable Tights!
    I also think that if you lie about a crime, you should do the time that the person you accused of would have gotten! Not just a perjury fine!
  • Rome is burning 2007/06/27 21:54:08
    Yes
    Rome is burning
    +1
    Judge Angry McLooserpants should pay through the nose.
  • jackrorabbit 2007/06/26 14:32:41
    Yes
    jackrorabbit
    +3
    And the other sides attorney fees. I think that all attorney fees
    should be seen so that people can see just how much they make as a
    percentage of the "gain" that the winner actually gets.
  • reminder 2007/06/26 02:41:23
    Yes
    reminder
    +3
    Yes, then maybe some of these people will not take the chance.

    But I think the lawyers themselves need to pay for taking the frivolous suits to court. That would be the best deterent when it came from their pockets. If it weren't for the lawyers a lot of these cases wouldn't get to court.
  • RIC HARD 2007/06/25 20:41:08
    Yes
    RIC HARD
    +2
    I think it would stop some of these frivilous lawsuits. Like the recent lawsuit against a dry-cleaner losing the guys pants! $54 million geeeeeeez now that idiot should pay court costs at the very least. At least the judge was smart enough to dismiss it.
  • highlatte 2007/06/25 18:15:15
    Undecided
    highlatte
    +3
    We need grand juries to decide whether a suit should go forward, just as in criminal cases. Way to many lawsuits sucking up tax dollars. Either that and/or mediators being used more often.
  • e 2007/06/25 18:10:55
    Yes
    e
    +2
    Yes, but like others have mentioned, not in all cases. Perhaps the judge could determine if the case is so absurd as to warrant the loser paying the court costs.
  • jax290 2007/06/25 18:07:53
    Yes
    jax290
    +1
    Without question. We are a very litigious society, with thousands if not millions of frivilous law suits. Something has to be done to curb this practice. Cities have even gone to designating monies to a fund to pay off the frivilous law suits with a fixed amount depending on the type of claim. They don't even fight most anymore because the cost to fight is greater than the 5-10-20 thousand dollar claims. Personally, I think a law should be written to require jail time for obvious frivilous law suits.
  • Master Rob 2007/06/25 18:03:42 (edited)
    Yes
    Master Rob
    +1
    Why only "yes" and "no"?

    There should be a button for "Hell yeah!"

    (And by the way, these "undecideds" are daffy. Check out the English system and THINK, people...)
  • Fef Master Rob 2007/06/25 18:05:03
    Fef
    Do you think it would discourage frivolous lawsuits or just prevent the winner from suffering?
  • John 2007/06/25 18:02:12
    Yes
    John
    If they are there willingly due to not settling or are throwing a frivilous lawsuit and are losing instead of doing the right thing and taking care of a problem YES it should be the loser pays them anyway! A person losing a pair of pants and suing for 54 million is RIDICULOUS! I don't care if it was the last thing his mother/wife made him and there is sentimental value to it...had he gone to small claims court he could have replaced the pants with something similar, probably would have won and as a result of his stupidity in being sue happy he should have to pay for his stupidity!
  • jackror... John 2007/06/26 14:34:43
    jackrorabbit
    He was offered 20K to settle out of court.
  • John jackror... 2007/06/26 17:24:22
    John
    I read that, I am still confused about WHY they would offer that kind of money for a Suit!!! I hardly doubt a suit could sell for 20K!
  • jackror... John 2007/06/27 14:20:32
    jackrorabbit
    To avoid the court costs and the lawyer fees that will exceed that amount.
  • John jackror... 2007/06/27 14:21:41
    John
    +3
    So basically I am reading it correct, the suit was probably a 1K suit and the guy just wanted to be an @$$?
  • jackror... John 2007/06/27 14:22:20
    jackrorabbit
    If that, I think the pants were valued at about 250-350 dollars.
  • Reezy-b 2007/06/25 18:00:34
    Undecided
    Reezy-b
    +1
    I really guess it all depends on the situation
  • Danny 2007/06/25 17:53:19
    Undecided
    Danny
    +1
    Depends what the case is. In this particular case, I would vote YES, only because the loser happens to be such a freakin' loser! This guy should do time in a mental-health facility, in my opinion.
  • Richard 2007/06/25 17:51:55
    Undecided
    Richard
    If the case is frivolous, yes. But sometimes, like in some episodes of the People's Court, the plaintiff just neglects to bring enough evidence for what would have been a reasonable case.
  • Adi 2007/06/25 17:51:46
    Yes
    Adi
    +1
    I think if a suit is found to be frivolous, as in the case you mention above, the loser should be held liable. Particularly given the fact that the defendant tried to settle for $12,000! The plaintiff was obviously money and media hungry.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 09:42:53

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals