Originally Posted by sureshs
In the US, losers can also be asked to pay, depending on the case.
One has to be careful that it is not used against individuals being exploited by a corporation. It often takes many lawsuits to bring big corporations to justice, as they try their best to bankrupt anyone filing a lawsuit against them. There have also been many civil rights cases where the initial decisions were unfavorable, until it was clear that there was a pattern.
The loser pays all the time idea is horrible. No one can know what the outcome will be. It will be fundamentally biased in favor of those with deep pockets.
Yea, but I don't mind a judge being able to label a lawsuit as frivolous. If a plaintiff can't come close to a burden of proof, they are wasting the resources of the defendant and the taxpayer funded court system.
Agree about the deep pockets theory. I guess that I would argue court costs should be paid by a plaintiff only when the suit is tossed early in the process and labeled by a judge as frivolous. Thus, costs would be minimal. In the event of a mid trial settlement they get split 50/50 and upon verdict they are paid by defense. My 2 cents, not a lawyer.