Should loser pay for civil trial by jury

[BuffaloBill]

So I was lucky enough to get called for jury duty today and as a result would like to suggest a change to our system. Before explaining why let me just say with civil (not criminal cases) let the loser pay. Here’s why I think this.

 

The first panel I get called for some goof is contesting a parking ticket. He allegedly parked facing the wrong way on a two way street. I do not know what the ticket cost. I am assuming $25.00 but for sake of example let’s assume it is outlandish and $200.

 

Six people get selected for the “trial.” I was not one of them so I do not know the outcome. Judge says that between selection of the jury, presentation of the case, deliberation and sentencing the process is likely to take 3 hours for all involved. There is a judge, bailiff, city attorney, ticketing officer, police protection within the court building, administrative time and jury time to consider. I came up with a very conservative estimate that says the value of the time and overhead at $400 per hour (BTW I believe the real cost would likely be more like $1,000 per hour).

 

So this guy gets to burn $1200 of cost against his (maybe) $200 ticket. He has a right to this trial but why should the taxpayers lose if he does? Make him pay the $1200 to the city if he loses.

 

What do you think?

[Doc]

I always believed that the loser in a civil case should pay court fees. But that would severely cut down on court cases and guess who that affects?

[DC Tom]

So I was lucky enough to get called for jury duty today and as a result would like to suggest a change to our system. Before explaining why let me just say with civil (not criminal cases) let the loser pay. Here’s why I think this.

 

The first panel I get called for some goof is contesting a parking ticket. He allegedly parked facing the wrong way on a two way street. I do not know what the ticket cost. I am assuming $25.00 but for sake of example let’s assume it is outlandish and $200.

 

Six people get selected for the “trial.” I was not one of them so I do not know the outcome. Judge says that between selection of the jury, presentation of the case, deliberation and sentencing the process is likely to take 3 hours for all involved. There is a judge, bailiff, city attorney, ticketing officer, police protection within the court building, administrative time and jury time to consider. I came up with a very conservative estimate that says the value of the time and overhead at $400 per hour (BTW I believe the real cost would likely be more like $1,000 per hour).

 

So this guy gets to burn $1200 of cost against his (maybe) $200 ticket. He has a right to this trial but why should the taxpayers lose if he does? Make him pay the $1200 to the city if he loses.

 

What do you think?

 

Bigger question is: A jury trial for a !@#$ing parking ticket? I hope they guy demanded it, since any jurisdiction that requires it is completely out of their collective bureaucratic mind.

 

Having said that...I disagree. If you even think about demanding a jury trial for a parking violation, you shouldn't pay. You should just be shot in the head, as a service to the greater good of humanity.

[KD in CA]

I always believed that the loser in a civil case should pay court fees. But that would severely cut down on court cases and guess who that affects?

 

Yup. We'll never see legal reform that does anything to take business away from lawyers.

[Doc]

Bigger question is: A jury trial for a !@#$ing parking ticket? I hope they guy demanded it, since any jurisdiction that requires it is completely out of their collective bureaucratic mind.

 

Having said that...I disagree. If you even think about demanding a jury trial for a parking violation, you shouldn't pay. You should just be shot in the head, as a service to the greater good of humanity.

If only.

[Peace]

They do it that way (loser pays atty fees) in the UK.

 

The flip side to why the US system is better is that in a "loser pays the other side's attorney fees," the little guy will never bring a lawsuit against the big company because the big company will pile up a ton of fees that the little guy--should he lose--will never be able to pay.

 

The other flip side of this now three-sided coin is that in "loser pays," you can have worse outcomes than in our "pay your own fees" sorts of cases. For example, the "God hate fags" people protested outside a funeral of a slain soldier. The father of the slain soldier sued the "God hates fags" people...and lost. (This is an actual case BTW.) Should he now have to pay the "God hates fags" people a few hundred grand? Ugh, right? Bad result. As it happens, because he lost, he has to pay the "God hates fags" people their costs because that is in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...but if he had to pay their attorney fees too, that would be a nightmare.

 

Neither system is great but when erring on one side vs. the other, I'd rather that the individual had a stronger opportunity to bring his case.

 

Fixing the system needs to start with judges being less afraid to sanction attorneys and attorneys being better at policing themselves.

[BuffaloBill]

Bigger question is: A jury trial for a !@#$ing parking ticket? I hope they guy demanded it, since any jurisdiction that requires it is completely out of their collective bureaucratic mind.

 

Having said that...I disagree. If you even think about demanding a jury trial for a parking violation, you shouldn't pay. You should just be shot in the head, as a service to the greater good of humanity.

 

 

The guy requested it and was representing himself so I guess it is a nothing ventured nothing gained situation for him.

 

What is even more absurd is that the facts simply boild down to answering the following questions:

 

1) Was it his car?

2) Was it a two way street?

3) Was his car parked?

4) If so, was it facing the wrong direction on the street?

 

Answer affirmatively the guy is correctly ticketed. I highly doubt the brilliant crafters of the contitution and bill of rights had this garbage in mind when they allowed for a trial by jury. I almost feel bad for the people that work in this system every day. Imagine spending three long years in law school to get out and be either the city attorney or judge that has to hear this kind of crap.

 

Why the heck does the process need to take three hours - not to mention all the overhead to answer these idiotic questions. Give the traffic cop a digital camera - have him / her take a picture print it on the ticket.

 

I so happy my tax dollars and time are being put to good use for this guy.

 

They do it that way (loser pays atty fees) in the UK.

 

The flip side to why the US system is better is that in a "loser pays the other side's attorney fees," the little guy will never bring a lawsuit against the big company because the big company will pile up a ton of fees that the little guy--should he lose--will never be able to pay.

 

The other flip side of this now three-sided coin is that in "loser pays," you can have worse outcomes than in our "pay your own fees" sorts of cases. For example, the "God hate fags" people protested outside a funeral of a slain soldier. The father of the slain soldier sued the "God hates fags" people...and lost. (This is an actual case BTW.) Should he now have to pay the "God hates fags" people a few hundred grand? Ugh, right? Bad result. As it happens, because he lost, he has to pay the "God hates fags" people their costs because that is in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...but if he had to pay their attorney fees too, that would be a nightmare.

 

Neither system is great but when erring on one side vs. the other, I'd rather that the individual had a stronger opportunity to bring his case.

 

Fixing the system needs to start with judges being less afraid to sanction attorneys and attorneys being better at policing themselves.

 

As much as I hate the "God Hates Fags People" suing them for exercising their right to free speach is a losing proposition assuming they violated no other statutes. I feel for the father because I can't imagine a more significant injustice than to lose a son fighting for the precious rights those idiots so freely exercise.

 

What about capping the exposure? I just think at the end of the day brining idiotic cases into court costs everyone dearly. People should be made to think about the costs and consequences.

[Doc]

They do it that way (loser pays atty fees) in the UK.

 

The flip side to why the US system is better is that in a "loser pays the other side's attorney fees," the little guy will never bring a lawsuit against the big company because the big company will pile up a ton of fees that the little guy--should he lose--will never be able to pay.

 

The other flip side of this now three-sided coin is that in "loser pays," you can have worse outcomes than in our "pay your own fees" sorts of cases. For example, the "God hate fags" people protested outside a funeral of a slain soldier. The father of the slain soldier sued the "God hates fags" people...and lost. (This is an actual case BTW.) Should he now have to pay the "God hates fags" people a few hundred grand? Ugh, right? Bad result. As it happens, because he lost, he has to pay the "God hates fags" people their costs because that is in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...but if he had to pay their attorney fees too, that would be a nightmare.

Isn't that what more or less happens now? If Big Company X loses a civil case, they'll appeal and keep appealing until the little guy runs out of money. But if you have a strong case, you'll still go ahead with it.

 

And just to clarify, I'm talking about paying court fees, not the defendant's attorney fees. And the plaintiff can be given a rough estimate of costs per/day prior to proceeding with a trial.

[KD in CA]

The other flip side of this now three-sided coin is that in "loser pays," you can have worse outcomes than in our "pay your own fees" sorts of cases. For example, the "God hate fags" people protested outside a funeral of a slain soldier. The father of the slain soldier sued the "God hates fags" people...and lost. (This is an actual case BTW.) Should he now have to pay the "God hates fags" people a few hundred grand? Ugh, right? Bad result.

 

I would call that a distasteful result but not necessarily a bad result. Did the father really have any legal basis for the lawsuit or was it just an emotionally charged reaction?

 

 

Personally, I keep hoping a couple guys will invest in a stolen car, ski masks and shotguns to deal with those 'God hates fags' nutjobs.

[BuffaloBill]

 

 

Personally, I keep hoping a couple guys will invest in a stolen car, ski masks and shotguns to deal with those 'God hates fags' nutjobs.

 

 

Personally, I would vote to declare that burning them at the stake was not a cruel and unusual form of punishment if appled to them. I would even be in favor of using a slow burn.

[Steely Dan]

So I was lucky enough to get called for jury duty today and as a result would like to suggest a change to our system. Before explaining why let me just say with civil (not criminal cases) let the loser pay. Here’s why I think this.

 

The first panel I get called for some goof is contesting a parking ticket. He allegedly parked facing the wrong way on a two way street. I do not know what the ticket cost. I am assuming $25.00 but for sake of example let’s assume it is outlandish and $200.

 

Six people get selected for the “trial.” I was not one of them so I do not know the outcome. Judge says that between selection of the jury, presentation of the case, deliberation and sentencing the process is likely to take 3 hours for all involved. There is a judge, bailiff, city attorney, ticketing officer, police protection within the court building, administrative time and jury time to consider. I came up with a very conservative estimate that says the value of the time and overhead at $400 per hour (BTW I believe the real cost would likely be more like $1,000 per hour).

 

So this guy gets to burn $1200 of cost against his (maybe) $200 ticket. He has a right to this trial but why should the taxpayers lose if he does? Make him pay the $1200 to the city if he loses.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Bigger question is: A jury trial for a !@#$ing parking ticket? I hope they guy demanded it, since any jurisdiction that requires it is completely out of their collective bureaucratic mind.

 

Having said that...I disagree. If you even think about demanding a jury trial for a parking violation, you shouldn't pay. You should just be shot in the head, as a service to the greater good of humanity.

 

What he said. I didn't even know it was possible to get a jury trial for a parking violation.

 

 

The guy requested it and was representing himself so I guess it is a nothing ventured nothing gained situation for him.

 

What is even more absurd is that the facts simply boild down to answering the following questions:

 

1) Was it his car?

2) Was it a two way street?

3) Was his car parked?

4) If so, was it facing the wrong direction on the street?

 

Answer affirmatively the guy is correctly ticketed. I highly doubt the brilliant crafters of the contitution and bill of rights had this garbage in mind when they allowed for a trial by jury. I almost feel bad for the people that work in this system every day. Imagine spending three long years in law school to get out and be either the city attorney or judge that has to hear this kind of crap.

 

Why the heck does the process need to take three hours - not to mention all the overhead to answer these idiotic questions. Give the traffic cop a digital camera - have him / her take a picture print it on the ticket.

 

I so happy my tax dollars and time are being put to good use for this guy.

 

 

 

As much as I hate the "God Hates Fags People" suing them for exercising their right to free speach is a losing proposition assuming they violated no other statutes. I feel for the father because I can't imagine a more significant injustice than to lose a son fighting for the precious rights those idiots so freely exercise.

 

What about capping the exposure? I just think at the end of the day brining idiotic cases into court costs everyone dearly. People should be made to think about the costs and consequences.

 

BBM

 

It was a pain in their ass. That's good enough for me.

 

 

Isn't that what more or less happens now? If Big Company X loses a civil case, they'll appeal and keep appealing until the little guy runs out of money. But if you have a strong case, you'll still go ahead with it.

 

And just to clarify, I'm talking about paying court fees, not the defendant's attorney fees. And the plaintiff can be given a rough estimate of costs per/day prior to proceeding with a trial.

 

If lawyers think they have a strong case they represent them for free because the payoff on a large settlement is huge for a lawyer. IIRC, most take 40%.

 

 

I would call that a distasteful result but not necessarily a bad result. Did the father really have any legal basis for the lawsuit or was it just an emotionally charged reaction?

 

 

Personally, I keep hoping a couple guys will invest in a stolen car, ski masks and shotguns to deal with those 'God hates fags' nutjobs.

 

BBM

 

Interestingly, they may for once be right about people dying because of what their church believes is true.

[DC Tom]

The guy requested it and was representing himself so I guess it is a nothing ventured nothing gained situation for him.

 

Shoot him.

 

What he said. I didn't even know it was possible to get a jury trial for a parking violation.

 

You have a constitutional right to a trial by a jury of your peers. I've never seen a jurisdiction where you couldn't request and get one for a traffic violation, including a parking ticket.

 

Generally, though, you have to be a total !@#$ing douchebag to request it.

[Peace]

Isn't that what more or less happens now? If Big Company X loses a civil case, they'll appeal and keep appealing until the little guy runs out of money. But if you have a strong case, you'll still go ahead with it.

 

The difference being that attorneys for the plaintiff can work off retainer so the little guy never runs out of money as long as the plaintiff's attorney keeps fighting the appeals. That's how big companies fall in big cases. Best example of this is set forth in the great book and lesser movie A Civil Action.

 

And just to clarify, I'm talking about paying court fees, not the defendant's attorney fees. And the plaintiff can be given a rough estimate of costs per/day prior to proceeding with a trial.

 

Interesting idea. That's some middle ground. Right now the losing party has to pay costs (copies, travel costs, etc) in federal court.

 

As much as I hate the "God Hates Fags People" suing them for exercising their right to free speach is a losing proposition assuming they violated no other statutes. I feel for the father because I can't imagine a more significant injustice than to lose a son fighting for the precious rights those idiots so freely exercise.

 

What about capping the exposure? I just think at the end of the day brining idiotic cases into court costs everyone dearly. People should be made to think about the costs and consequences.

 

They were sued, according to Wikipedia, for "defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress." The common law elements for the latter are (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.

 

I agree that the result is right (God hates fags people win) but it wasn't that outrageous to sue in that instance. Nevertheless, the father of the slain soldier then had to pay the costs to the "god hates fags" people and under the system proposed in this thread, would have to pay even more.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Our local for the union at my work (AFGE) works like that. Loser pays the arbitration costs. The local isn't broke either.

[BuffaloBill]

Our local for the union at my work (AFGE) works like that. Loser pays the arbitration costs. The local isn't broke either.

 

I am shocked that a union would agree to this provision. I would venture a guess that they did not ask for it nor called attention to it during the voting on the contract it originally appeared in.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I am shocked that a union would agree to this provision. I would venture a guess that they did not ask for it nor called attention to it during the voting on the contract it originally appeared in.

 

 

Nope. We had it put in it. Everybody was behind it.

[BuffaloBill]

Nope. We had it put in it. Everybody was behind it.

 

 

Some locals are very wise - you are a part of one. Should we ever meet I'll tell you some stories about ones that were not - lost significant money on losing arbitrations for loser members.

[BB27]

 

You have a constitutional right to a trial by a jury of your peers. I've never seen a jurisdiction where you couldn't request and get one for a traffic violation, including a parking ticket.

 

Generally, though, you have to be a total !@#$ing douchebag to request it.

Not in federal court. You do not have the right to a jury trial for misdemeanor offenses where you won't be sentenced to time in jail. It could cost you $5000 in fines, but if they aren't going to put you in jail, then you cannot have a jury trial.

Edited August 30, 2010 by BB27

[DC Tom]

Not in federal court. You do not have the right to a jury trial for misdemeanor offenses where you won't be sentenced to time in jail. It could cost you $5000 in fines, but if they aren't going to put you in jail, then you cannot have a jury trial.

 

There's federal misdemeanor offenses?

 

Seems like a total waste of money. The feds couldn't prosecute jaywalking without it costing thousands per pedestrian.

[BB27]

There's federal misdemeanor offenses?

 

Seems like a total waste of money. The feds couldn't prosecute jaywalking without it costing thousands per pedestrian.

Sure, class A, B, and C as well as infractions.

 

DOD police, Park Rangers, US Army Corps of Engineers all issue traffic tickets, etc for minor offenses. Someone has to hear them.

 

Always funny when we are having an initial appearance for some serious felony, and some guy has been busted by the park rangers for pot possession is sitting waiting for his turn.