To hate the suing culture?

[SoUpsetWithLawyers]

NC for obvious reasons.

DH works in a job that is public facing. We found out yesterday that he is being sued. For a situation he had no control over, and was in fact in another country. But the bastarding no win lawyer has said the best chance of the client getting the most money is to sue everyone, irrespective of the level of involvement.

Suing isn't a quick way to make a bit of cash without hurting anyone. This will hurt my family for years to come irrespective of outcome

He is being sued or the company is?

Depends what he is being sued for??

I have actually sued a dentist on my sons behalf and in the process of suing a doctor on the same sons behalf! Both on the grounds of negligence!

It has its uses.

5 years ago dh was in a preventable accident connected to his work.

We wanted steps taken so that it couldn't happen to anyone else. We said "we are thinking of suing - please do this." They did. No one else has had the accident.

Both the organisation and him personally (and others personally).

Sorry - forgot to say - they didn't do the prevention when we first asked - only when we started muttering about suing.

He was actually very lucky with the accident. He is right handed and an ex-international at a sport that involves complete control of his right hand. He still plays at a very high level now. The damage was to his left hand. Had it been done to his right hand he would not been able to play again.

Without knowing the details we haven't a clue if he holds any responsibility or not. You say he doesn't but a lawyer obviously thinks he does. They won't work out of the goodness of their hearts.
If he is even partly responsibly for either pain, suffering of loss then why shouldn't he be sued?

If your DH really had no responsibility for what happened, then the case will get thrown out. If he had responsibility, then he'll just have to take it on the chin. I'd rather there was opportunities for people to be compensated than not - there are still plenty of areas of work in the UK where health & safety is not adhered to. Around 150 people die because of poor workplace practices every year and 80,000 more are injured. It is notoriously difficult to pin the blame on people who make the decisions leading to these incidents - even recent legislation which purported to do so was a fudge due to not addressing incidents involving systemic failure (more usual) as opposed to incidents arising because of the actions of one person (rare).

What pisses me off is when organisations pay up because it's cheaper than going to court - even when they're in the right.

Greedy bastarding lawyers know this.

Accidents happen, shit happens - most reasonable people accept that.

I broke my ankle and lots of people said I should sue but I feel that I was careless, the council were a bit negligent - why take more money out of the coffers and away from where it's needed?

I think it depends on why someone is suing. I also broke my ankle tripping over a badly maintained pavement and everyone said I should sue. I didn't as it didn't feel like the right thing to do. However when a large organisation blatantly and publicly discriminated against me because of my disability I sued the bastards until they were on their knees begging for my forgiveness. (I won, they paid out and more importantly changed their ways so it shouldn't ever happen to anyone else)

I guess the flip side of that is that if someone loses their livelihood due to an incident that stops them working which a company is responsible for, the money is needed to compensate them for their loss.

I certainly wouldn't like to go back to the bad old days where men died due to poor working practices and their families were not financially compensated.

RageRage, agree with you. The changes to workplace practices that we have seen in the last few decades (and which are still ongoing) didn't happen by magic - they happened as a result of trade union pressure backed up by so-called 'greedy bastarding lawyers' making sure that companies don't think they can get away with literally killing people.

I know a few people who have used the greedy bastarding "no win no fee" firms that advertise on TV and have got money for virtually nothing.

Health and Safety at work is legislated for so if the law is being broken that's different from being a chancer and hoping to get something for nothing.

It's all part of the same issue though - either you hold people responsible for when their actions impact negatively on others, or you don't. H&S might be legislated but people are very poorly protected by the HSE when a breach occurs - they are under-manned and simply do not have the resources to deal with all the issues brought before them.

morgause - that is what I fear will happen. The NHS and other big organisations are seen as a good bet because they're more likely to pay rather than go to court.

Hate the "no win no fee" culture as nothing is an accident any more, its always someone elses fault. Miss your footing or dont spot the cracked paving stone as you're chatting away and straight away too many think of suing. As for "whiplash", mmm.

It has its place for serious negligent incidents but regulations and fees should be looked at again to stop the small claims.

I struggle a bit with this one to be honest.

In the USA I completely understand medical issues being sued for - you stump up your own costs and even with insurance could find yourself thousands in debt for a broken bone for example.

This side of the ocean, I can understand if something has cost you significantly in loss of wages. A MW earner who gets nothing more than SSP and could potentially lose their job altogether meaning accruing debts or a significant change in lifestyle - well yes, I can see why they would seek compensation..

I suppose it's just not as black and white as everyone either being a chancer or deserving.

OP have you had chance to speak with a solicitor and find out where your DH stands legally?

I found it really hard to find a lawyer to take my sons case on as the nhs is the hardest organisation to sue, I've found one and it turns out the doctors being sued not the nhs!

Big organisations always close ranks, can afford good legal representation and the NHS are adept at arse-covering, so not sure why anybody would think they are an easy target. In fact, it's not easy by any means to get compensation out of anyone - you have to prove fault and liability. If someone settles, it's because there's a good case against them; why on earth would they choose to settle if they were not at fault? That just makes no sense at all.

It really does depend why someone is suing. We sued the hospital who delivered my first born. The doctor pulled on his head instead of performing the mcroberts manouvre or other shoulder dystocia procedures and pulled so hard that she caused nerve damage and left him with erbs palsy.

If the doctor hadn't vanished off the face of the earth we'd have sued her too! Personally. Since she pulled our son by the head and left him with a paralysed arm. But we took action against the hospital and won. That money is now in trust for our son, who has a lifelong disability.

It took ten years. Ten years. It wasn't easy. But he now has a trust fund of several hundred thousand pounds and I am glad.

An accident is an accident and often nobody is to blame, but sometimes people are to blame and in those cases they should be held accountable.

However, I honestly fail to see how someone who wasn't even in the country is in any way liable. Unless he gave instructions over the phone that caused a problem, or insisted on policies that resulted in injury or something. It's really bizarre. Hopefully his workplace will provide him with legal help? Will they?

Assuming he was an employee acting in the course of his duties (to the extent he did anything at all of course) then his employer is vicariously liable for his actions and therefore they will be paying up both for his defence and, in the event compensation was awarded, the compensation.

Litigants in person sue everyone in sight (sometimes including the other side's lawyers). Lawyers on the other hand tend not to unless they think there's a case - even more so if they are no win no fee types for obvious reasons.

If there's no case against your DH because he was nothing to do with it, then no doubt the company's lawyers will be applying to get his name removed in any case with a risk of costs or paying a deposit against the other side if they insist on keeping him in.