Originally Posted by floridatennisdude
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.
All those provisions are in place. For example, say you sue your employer saying there was some problem in the office ventilation which made you sick and you have to go home early and lie down till the next morning. then it is found that you were actually playing tennis every day. You can well be asked to pay the legal costs when you lose.
That is why read the fine print of the product disability lawyer ads on TV. They will mention that there is no guarantee of any money from a settlement, and you may actually owe money to the company you sue if you lose.