(not asking for advice, just a thought that popped into my head)

I understand that medical injuries are a factor in something like a missing caution sign, but how is it that someone can sue and win in a case of common sense when a company has no sign? For example, many companies use signs so they are not liable for theft at say a public laundromat but some don’t have this. How do they avoid a lawsuit when they don’t have a sign even though it is common sense? What type of law protects a customer when a business lacks a sign and allows them to win against a business owner?

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    that a law firm thinks it can make money

    This is unfortunately rather common in the USA, specifically the issue of nuisance-value lawsuits: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/351/

    So even without a meritorious lawsuit, a law firm can extract what is essential a ransom, because for a targeted business or individual, they would have to pay their own way for a defense attorney, taking time to go to court, and all sorts of other headaches. It can indeed seem reasonable to just pay a few thousand dollars to the attacking law firm just to make them go away.

    Even if one jurisdiction were to implement some of those proposed solutions to nuisance-value lawsuits, there are 50 US States and the federal courts, so pernicious law firms can just go forum shopping.

    • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I see this in my own field as patent trolls.

      Not ordinary people, and relatively rare per capita; but the population is big enough to have many parasites; or a very proficient few based on what they practice.

      My life would be easier professionally if the top ten patent trolls went out of business nationally