baldeagle wrote:The statute doesn't say you can't be sued; it says you are immune from liability. Also, the Texas Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to access the courts with grievances and this is why no law can bar people from filing suit. Tell me just how attorneys make money filing suits they can't win? I'd really like to know that so I can tell my buddies how we can get rich losing.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Am I the only one who thinks our legal system is nuts? You can't sue me, but you can file a suit against me? I can think of only one reason to have such illogical rules; so lawyers can make money. You can't win a suit against me, but you can force me to incur costs that I should not incur by filing a suit against me? Only in America.
Chas.
It most certainly is not! It was that way in certain parts of Texas several years ago, but it hasn't been that way for at least 15 years. Take some time to research jury verdicts in Texas (there are services if you are interested) and you'll see that jury's have been very stingy for many years.baldeagle wrote:The tort system is tilted decidedly in the favor of plaintiffs from a financial standpoint.
This is incorrect. At a minimum, there is a filing fee plus costs of service just to get started. Then you have to pay for deposition, experts, investigators and numerous other fees. You have to pay the salaries of your staff. Some cases incur relative low costs while others can cost the attorney many hundreds of thousands of dollars.baldeagle wrote:In the case of suits where the attorney take a case on contingency and expects to collect from the defendant (either through settlement or decision), the plaintiff incurs no costs at all.
You are obviously talking about your case, not a justified self-defense case, but even here you are wrong. Yes, there are legal fees, but your attorney is going to be able to file for a motion for summary judgment early on to minimize your costs.baldeagle wrote:The defendant, OTOH, immediately incurs costs whether he is in the right or not. And those costs mount up so quickly that many defendants settle rather than go to court simply because it's less expensive. I have personal experience with just such a case.
A pro se plaintiff in this type of suit has no chance of avoiding a summary judgment, so defense costs will be minimal. Also, there are no court costs and filing fees to the defendant, unless the plaintiff wins and the court awards costs against the defendant.baldeagle wrote:In the case we're discussing, a plaintiff could file suit pro se, and the defendant still incurs costs from hiring an attorney and paying court and filing costs, even though the law will always hold him harmless. As you well know, attorneys are not inexpensive. Even a low fee attorney is going to be charging over $100/hr. Then you have court costs and filing fees, all to get a summary judgment for a case that never should have been brought to begin with. That's precisely why I said I would defend myself pro se - to reduce my costs as much as possible. But I shouldn't have to incur any costs at all.
First of all, less than 50% of members of the Texas Legislature are attorneys, so your suggestion that the laws and constitution are written to provide "another way for attorneys to collect fees" is utterly unfounded. I don't know how to respond to your constitutional attack, other than to say the constitution protects Texans and no citizen can be denied access to the courts. I suspect you wouldn't want the constitution's protection of your firearm rights to be as weak as you would like to see for citizens seeking redress of grievances in court.baldeagle wrote:I do not understand the "logic" that says because a citizen is guaranteed the right to access the courts for grievances he should therefore have the right to file a suit that that law clearly states he cannot prevail in. And I can only think of one reason that "logic" exists. It's another way for attorneys to collect fees. The only other logic that makes any sense is that the legal system has decided that it's acceptable for plaintiffs to financially harass a plaintiff via the court system. I doubt anyone would argue that that is the case.
Chas.
