NASA sued for Deep Impact

[southsider2k5]

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050705/D8B578DG0.html

[Pauly8509CWS]

Yet again, another dumbass trying to make a quick buck, or 300 million bucks. If she was that into her horoscope, wouldnt it have said something like

 

"You will think of a way to scam American Government, and making your home into a nest is your primary focus, and it won't be easy to distract you. Keep in mind that sorting, fluffing and rearranging can actually be more satisfying than shopping. "

[Balta1701]

Personally I want to know what statute she's trying to sue them under...did someone out there pass a law regarding interfering with the orbits of comets? Does she have some sort of property rights over the comet? Did the Comet sign some sort of document giving her control over the comet's lifespan?

[Texsox]

Isn't spreading democracy a beautiful thing? The Russians seem to have grasped the Old American Work Ethic.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Personally I want to know what statute she's trying to sue them under...did someone out there pass a law regarding interfering with the orbits of comets?    Does she have some sort of property rights over the comet?  Did the Comet sign some sort of document giving her control over the comet's lifespan?

 

 

Something has to be done to do away with frivolus lawsuits like this. Yeah this is going to get dismissed post-haste but still it costs money for companies and various governments to defend against them.

[Queen Prawn]

Something has to be done to do away with frivolus lawsuits like this.  Yeah this is going to get dismissed post-haste but still it costs money for companies and various governments to defend against them.

 

Which is why most do not defend them - they settle out of court asap. I could not believe some of the most inane court cases that happened at the last company I was at. The worst was one where the plaintiff should have been brought up on murder charges, and instead profitted from his gf's grandfather's death. It's unbelieveable the amount of money paid out because it is cheaper to settle than to go to court even if the company/government wins. :puke

[Palehosefan]

Companies should be able to seek damages from the "victim" if the charges are found to be false. This would stop alot of people from claiming frivelous charges.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Companies should be able to seek damages from the "victim" if the charges are found to be false. This would stop alot of people from claiming frivelous charges.

 

 

Agreed. Hopefully the Bush Administration can get its tort reform pushed through and stop the jackpot like atmosphere that has been created in American courtrooms.

[Soxbadger]

Depending on the statutes, many states do allow the defense to ask for attorney fees in connection with frivolous lawsuits. Also, the lawyer may be punished if they are found to be bringing cases with out merit.

 

As for Bush's tort reform etc,

 

There is no amount of laws in the US that can change Russian law.

 

She brought the lawsuit in Russia, therefore US law does not even apply. The case will apply Russian law, as it will be Russian jurisdiction.

 

SB

[Texsox]

Something has to be done to do away with frivolus lawsuits like this.  Yeah this is going to get dismissed post-haste but still it costs money for companies and various governments to defend against them.

 

Stuff has been done in the US. Attorney's have been fined and can be disbarred for bringing suits without merit. Plantiffs have been found liable for defendants attorney fees. Notice this is out of Russia.

 

The down side is people who might otherwise have had their day in court, cannot. Some of these might have been valid.

[Texsox]

Agreed.  Hopefully the Bush Administration can get its tort reform pushed through and stop the jackpot like atmosphere that has been created in American courtrooms.

 

This is a Russian courtroom. No matter how great you believe Bush to be, you look silly thinking his tort reform would help this.

 

MOSCOW (AP) - NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust - it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer.

 

Marina Bai has sued the U.S. space agency, claiming the Deep Impact probe that punched a crater into the comet Tempel 1 late Sunday "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe," the newspaper Izvestia reported Tuesday. A Moscow court has postponed hearings on the case until late July, the paper said.

 

It was in the second paragraph. I guess being misinformed makes being a GOPerhead easier.

 

Leaving for a day or two while Nuke goes nuclear.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Stuff has been done in the US. Attorney's have been fined and can be disbarred for bringing suits without merit. Plantiffs have been found liable for defendants attorney fees. Notice this is out of Russia.

 

The down side is people who might otherwise have had their day in court, cannot. Some of these might have been valid.

 

 

Thats what I get for not reading the article.

 

 

Still the argument is valid for the overall picture.

[Soxbadger]

No because there are already plenty of safeguards against frivilous lawsuits, ie lawsuits that have no merit.

 

Just because you are unaware of those measures, does not mean that they do not exist.

 

There is a prescious balance between allowing people to seek justice in court, and penalizing some one for seeking out what they think to be justice.

 

As for this case in America, it would not even get off the ground. Not only iwould the theory be lacking in fundemental areas, I assume they would try mental anguish/ distress, seeing as there are no damages.

 

Damages are necessary in tort cases, and her theory that she is entitled to the cost of the mission does not fall under either nominal, compensatory or punitive, the only damages available to US plaintiffs.

 

Thus her claim is lacking on its face, as she claims no damages, and would be dismissed probably with court costs asserted towards the plaintiff. IE The defendant loses nothing but having to show up in court.

 

SB

[Palehosefan]

Thats good to know that there are some penalties for frivilous lawsuits. But what is in place now just isn't good enough. From personal experience, I had a great aunt that sued over 15 companies, mostly frivilous crap, just because she could. The only risk she took was the court costs, and the potential reward far outweighed the costs at the time. That was 10 years ago, and I'm not sure what has changed rules wise since then. You seem to be an expert in law, what are the potential consequences one would see in judging whether or not to file a potentially frivilous lawsuit? Is this all?

Plantiffs have been found liable for defendants attorney fees.

[Soxbadger]

The biggest risks are to the lawyer who brings the cases. If you are censured, or suspended for a year you could potentially lose your entire career. The truth is that is where the penalty should lie. People are not expected to know the law, and because we have an adversarial system, they are in some ways supposed to be opponents. Penalizing a plaintiff is some what unfair, as generally they go to a lawyer for legal advice, and the lawyer is the one who decides whether or not they have a legitimate claim.

 

With out representation, most of these court cases really pose no problems for companies. Pro se litigants are generally uninformed and fall victim to even the most common civil procedure tricks or summary judgement paper work. Pretty much a company will just drown a pro se in paper work to the point that the person has to spend far more time than they have trying to just get the case into court let alone ever having a chance at winning.

 

I just do not think it is fair to penalize the plaintiff for bringing a case that they and a lawyer legitimately think has merit, as it is in the end up to the lawyer to represent the plaintiff or not.

 

Court costs are generally a good punishment because it does not provide a windfall for the defendant (them making money for doing nothing), but at the same time offers the compensation for the amount of time they had to put in.

 

My biggest concern is that who is going to be the judge of what is frivilous?

 

Where do we draw the line?

 

And I am far from an expert, I just happen to have taken some professional responsibility courses.

 

SB

[Palehosefan]

Thanks for the response, it was very helpful.

 

My biggest concern is that who is going to be the judge of what is frivilous?

 

Thats a good question. My thoughts have been that if a "victim" loses a lawsuit for whatever reason, the opposition should get a chance to counter-sue the "victim" for whatever court charges plus a little extra for time lost etc. Then a jury would have a chance to see the evidence and make a judgement not only on the victim's charge, but on whether the victims charge was frivilous. If they see that the victims charge wasn't thrown out, but they in fact lost the case anyways, then the victim would owe nothing but the previously stated lawyer's fees.

 

That could trim down the amount of lawsuits in the future, and yet save the real cases of neglegence or whatever the victim is suing for based on the evidence. I do realize that is trying a case twice and would likely not work. But I just don't like the current circumstances.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It all depends on whether NASA is registered to do business (profit/non-profit) in Russia. I suspect that because a lawyer is following thru on this they are & that makes them subject to the laws governing their registration class.

 

However; Russia is not as liiberal as we are in terms of how they handle frivolous law suits. If Putin believes this could create an unfavorable international incident he'll probably squash it in the courts. You would be nieve to believe he doesn't weild that kind of "under the table" power.

[Heads22]

You see, when I found out the name of the project, I thought it might have been a porno director suing for the naming rights....

[Texsox]

Thanks for the response, it was very helpful.

Thats a good question. My thoughts have been that if a "victim" loses a lawsuit for whatever reason, the opposition should get a chance to counter-sue the "victim" for whatever court charges plus a little extra for time lost etc. Then a jury would have a chance to see the evidence and make a judgement not only on the victim's charge, but on whether the victims charge was frivilous. If they see that the victims charge wasn't thrown out, but they in fact lost the case anyways, then the victim would owe nothing but the previously stated lawyer's fees.

 

That could trim down the amount of lawsuits in the future, and yet save the real cases of neglegence or whatever the victim is suing for based on the evidence. I do realize that is trying a case twice and would likely not work. But I just don't like the current circumstances.

 

For whatever reason America is in love with the underdog. If people would have to pay GM's legal bill, they would never sue, right or wrong.

 

If we make it too difficult to sue, we risk valid cases not going to court and the good that comes out of that.

 

Just like a few guilty people go free so we know no innocent are convicted and we allow speech 10X worse than we agree with so that we are assured that all valid speech is protected, we need to see a small percentage of frivolous to assure ourselves that everyone who should have a day in court does.

[Balta1701]

You see, when I found out the name of the project, I thought it might have been a porno director suing for the naming rights....

I'm still quite impressed that both JPL and Hollywood came up with the name completely independently.