Actress sues Amazon for more than a million dollars

[Kevin8or]

Can't anyone add biographical info to an actor's IMDB page? If you know an actress' DOB, and it's missing (or incorrect) on her IMDB bio, you can click to edit the page. Submit your addition/correction, and IMDB staff will either approve or reject the change. Sort of like a tightly moderated wiki.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And without loser pays, you can't afford to defend an unjust case, but will be forced to settle, as otherwise even if you win, you lose. Neither way is ideal.

Unjust case, counter sue.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Unjust case, counter sue.

And without loser pays, you have to pay the costs of that case, no?
As I said, even if you win, you lose.
And you would have to prove that it was an unjust case, and that they knew that. And if you can't do that, you are now saddled with two loads of costs.
Both systems have problems, and can lead to a lack of access to justice to those who can't afford it.

[Pinecone]

No you sue for enough to cover the costs of both.

You sue me, it costs me X to defend against a frivilous suit. I sue you for X + Y, Y being the cost of suing you for the X amount. If the suit was realy stupid, you could sue for X+Y+Z, Z being penalities for being an idiot.

This is better than loser pays, in that it will only work if the original suit is frivilous or unreasonable.

If you really want to make it work, loser's LAWYER pays. That would stop a LOT of stupid suits, IMO.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

If you really want to make it work, loser's LAWYER pays. That would stop a LOT of stupid suits, IMO.

Which is what "no win no fee", or conditional fee arrangements, do.

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

No you sue for enough to cover the costs of both.

You sue me, it costs me X to defend against a frivilous suit. I sue you for X + Y, Y being the cost of suing you for the X amount. If the suit was realy stupid, you could sue for X+Y+Z, Z being penalities for being an idiot.

This is better than loser pays, in that it will only work if the original suit is frivilous or unreasonable.

If you really want to make it work, loser's LAWYER pays. That would stop a LOT of stupid suits, IMO.

I am, in every other aspect of the economy, against any sort of cap on income. However, I do think something along the lines of Lawyer cannot recap more than expenses+5%, but not greater than 50% of the settlement for cases that go to trial or 10% of the settlement for cases that are settled out of court would go a long way toward cutting down the crap.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Which is what "no win no fee", or conditional fee arrangements, do.

NO, the idea of this is, you sue me, you lose, your lawyer pays ME costs.

Make lawyers stop and think that maybe I don't want to file this one.

IMO, many are lawyers filing, figuring on little work and some settlement, which they get a big chuck of.

[howyoudoin]

Won't that only make lawyers reluctant to take on the 'tough' cases? Or they'd jack up their fees so they make up on wins what they lose on losses.

[carpetmojo]

But this is appalling - does this mean just any old Tom, Dick or, indeed, Harry can find out I'm older than 21 ?

Ooh, I could crush a crisp packet..........

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

But this is appalling - does this mean just any old Tom, Dick or, indeed, Harry can find out I'm older than 21 ?

Ooh, I could crush a crisp packet..........

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Won't that only make lawyers reluctant to take on the 'tough' cases? Or they'd jack up their fees so they make up on wins what they lose on losses.

Possibly, but at least they wouldn't file suits against everyone they can think of on a worthless case.

But loser pays just puts the burden on the person who feels they are wronged.

IMO, the current US system of allowing counter suits for frivilous cases probably is the best balance. You can sue, but that can result in your getting sued if you are off base.

[sabredog]

Good God.

Will she try and sue gravity next for assisting to reveal her age?

[ekster]

She might have a better chance suing time for making her older.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Keryl Raist

I am, in every other aspect of the economy, against any sort of cap on income. However, I do think something along the lines of Lawyer cannot recap more than expenses+5%, but not greater than 50% of the settlement for cases that go to trial or 10% of the settlement for cases that are settled out of court would go a long way toward cutting down the crap.

If want a system in which only the rich have access to the legal system, this would work very well.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Can't anyone add biographical info to an actor's IMDB page? If you know an actress' DOB, and it's missing (or incorrect) on her IMDB bio, you can click to edit the page. Submit your addition/correction, and IMDB staff will either approve or reject the change. Sort of like a tightly moderated wiki.

Yes. And I'm certain, based on my own updates, that there is an awful lot of "this sounds reasonable, I'll click 'approve'" vs. actual research and verification.

(I have never submitted false information, but I have submitted information about my own experience that even I can no longer verify...production company's out of business, etc) so, I'd be REALLY surprised if they are providing some sort of free private detective work to verify my credits.)

ApK