Remeber Star Wars kid? Yeah, he lost his mind
- Thread starter crupdawg
- Start date
For some reason I felt compelled to answer this topic, Bear6360. ![[;)]](/images/smilies/wink.png "Wink [;)]")
Canada is a common-law jurisdiction like the USA (98%) and UK, and not civil-law like Louisiana and Europe. I don't know the intricacies of Canadian tort law, but from the article it sounds like the claim they have brought against the kids is for "maliciously turning their son into an object of mockery." Whether or not that is a cause of action that is recognized in Canada, I don't know, but I would assume so (or their lawyer should have called it something else that did exist.)
In the US such a claim could probably be called intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. In order for him to "have a case" he would need to meet the required elements of the cause of action. The relevant Canadian law may require a physical manifestation of the effect that the mockery has had on him, or require some amount of public humiliation, in addition to other requirements that he probably does meet. (Like a connection between their actions and his distress, a physical manifestation of his injury, i.e. trouble sleeping, etc.) And, of course, that is all theoretical; in the real world anything can happen and does happen, despite what "the law" says.
Being in Canada, I wouldn't expect a high jury verdict. Their world view has resulted in a civil justice system that works more in terms of making the victim whole than making the victim rich and their lawyer richer.
As for whether it is 'right,' I can't really help you there. There is no quick fix for the system. As ridiculous and offensive as some of the lawsuits can be (far more than this one, if you happen to think it is offensive), there is no satisfactory way to separate them out before they are filed and no workable way to limit one's right to file them (excluding prisoners).
In the US, there is less of an incentive to avoid frivolous claims, as the loser normally does not have to pay the winner's attorneys' fees. I believe the opposite may be true in Canada.
Canada is a common-law jurisdiction like the USA (98%) and UK, and not civil-law like Louisiana and Europe. I don't know the intricacies of Canadian tort law, but from the article it sounds like the claim they have brought against the kids is for "maliciously turning their son into an object of mockery." Whether or not that is a cause of action that is recognized in Canada, I don't know, but I would assume so (or their lawyer should have called it something else that did exist.)
In the US such a claim could probably be called intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. In order for him to "have a case" he would need to meet the required elements of the cause of action. The relevant Canadian law may require a physical manifestation of the effect that the mockery has had on him, or require some amount of public humiliation, in addition to other requirements that he probably does meet. (Like a connection between their actions and his distress, a physical manifestation of his injury, i.e. trouble sleeping, etc.) And, of course, that is all theoretical; in the real world anything can happen and does happen, despite what "the law" says.
Being in Canada, I wouldn't expect a high jury verdict. Their world view has resulted in a civil justice system that works more in terms of making the victim whole than making the victim rich and their lawyer richer.
As for whether it is 'right,' I can't really help you there. There is no quick fix for the system. As ridiculous and offensive as some of the lawsuits can be (far more than this one, if you happen to think it is offensive), there is no satisfactory way to separate them out before they are filed and no workable way to limit one's right to file them (excluding prisoners).
In the US, there is less of an incentive to avoid frivolous claims, as the loser normally does not have to pay the winner's attorneys' fees. I believe the opposite may be true in Canada.
Spoken like a true lawyer. ![[hihi]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_hihi.gif "Hi Hi [hihi]")
You kept your opinion totally to yourself. You're allowed to tell us how you feel on the subject, though. Do you actually think they can win a case like this?
I don't feel quite so upset about it anymore since you informed us that he will be rewarded not so much monetarily as he would in the USA.
I think there are lots of problems with frivolous claims in the US....but I heard that there are some laws being put into affect to prevent them in the future.
Frivolous suits really get to me.
You kept your opinion totally to yourself. You're allowed to tell us how you feel on the subject, though. Do you actually think they can win a case like this?I don't feel quite so upset about it anymore since you informed us that he will be rewarded not so much monetarily as he would in the USA.
I think there are lots of problems with frivolous claims in the US....but I heard that there are some laws being put into affect to prevent them in the future.
Frivolous suits really get to me.
Bear6360 said:
Spoken like a true lawyer. You kept your opinion totally to yourself. You're allowed to tell us how you feel on the subject, though. Do you actually think they can win a case like this?
I don't feel quite so upset about it anymore since you informed us that he will be rewarded not so much monetarily as he would in the USA.
I think there are lots of problems with frivolous claims in the US....but I heard that there are some laws being put into affect to prevent them in the future.
Frivolous suits really get to me.
You kept your opinion totally to yourself. You're allowed to tell us how you feel on the subject, though. Do you actually think they can win a case like this?I don't feel quite so upset about it anymore since you informed us that he will be rewarded not so much monetarily as he would in the USA.
I think there are lots of problems with frivolous claims in the US....but I heard that there are some laws being put into affect to prevent them in the future.
Frivolous suits really get to me.
Will they win? Maybe.
Should they win? Yes, but . . .
What should they win?
A public apology and some internet ridicule of the defendants sound right to me.
Tort reform is probably not the answer. I haven't seen the specifics, but it will be written by special interests, the insurance company lobby and the defense bar come to mind, and that means that their interests will outweigh the stated goal to the point that the goal will be lost.
In this case, you have a prime example of why elections need to be publicly funded.
Careful, I might tell you what needs to be done to fix this country, and alienate a lot of ignorant people (and perhaps enter into a respectful debate with intelligent people with different values.)
(Not an invitation, even though it smells of one) [fake]
What a guy! I like intellectual threads. I think I know quite a few of life's problems as well...but that's way too much for either one of us to type. ...but without life's problems, life would be boring, no?
There are quite a few intellectuals on here if you wish to start that thread....but you're the lawyer...I'm leaving that ball in your court. [fake]
There are quite a few intellectuals on here if you wish to start that thread....but you're the lawyer...I'm leaving that ball in your court. [fake]
I wouldn't say Hillary or Martha are stupid. They have both made some questionable choices, to put it mildly.
Hillary got a senate seat for her ambitions, Martha a Federal Indictment and boatloads of cash. I guess I would rather be Hillary, although Martha is a little better looking, (a tough call, I admit).
Thankfully, I don't think I will be inheriting their bodies anytime soon.
Hillary got a senate seat for her ambitions, Martha a Federal Indictment and boatloads of cash. I guess I would rather be Hillary, although Martha is a little better looking, (a tough call, I admit).
Thankfully, I don't think I will be inheriting their bodies anytime soon.
Hillary got a senate seat because of a pity vote. She is going to completely destroy the state of New York and is already killing off upstate. As for which one of them has the better body, I would definately have to say Martha. (isuggest we leave it at that ) I really don't mind Bill clinton anymore for the shear fact that, knowing that he has slept with that woman at least once, makes me feel very, very sorry for him.
The chancelor of England was "portly" that kid is just thick!
) I really don't mind Bill clinton anymore for the shear fact that, knowing that he has slept with that woman at least once, makes me feel very, very sorry for him.The chancelor of England was "portly" that kid is just thick!
![[thumb]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_thumb.gif "Thumbs Up [thumb]"){kind=icon}