Comments on: Lawyer-Legislators Water Down SC Tort Reform Bill

By: patricia

patricia — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:45:27 +0000

“combined IQ of a secretary at my law firm”

I work at a law firm and most legal secretaries are quite bright. They keep this fact to themselves since most attorneys can’t stand anyone who can understand the law without a JD.

By: Just want some fairness

Just want some fairness — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:09:56 +0000

I couldn’t really care less about the rest of it, but it defies logic to me that failure to wear a seatbelt is inadmissible in a negligence suit over a traffic accident. For instance, if I accidently change lanes into my blind spot and don’t see you, causing an accident in which you are thrown out of your car because you purposefully chose not to wear your seat belt, my accidental violation of a statute can be considered evidence of negligence per se and the jury is charged so by the court. Howver, your intentional violation of a statute is not admissible at all, much less not negligence per se, even to show that your damages would have been less but for your decision to violate the law. Note that the burden or proof regarding the lessening of the damages would be on the defendant, so it’s not like this is a slam dunk just by having it be admissible.

Standard jury charges tell the jury that drivers have the right to assume other drivers will follow the law. Why is there an exception in this instance?

None of those arguing against this part of the bill have given any rational reason for their stance. Someone needs to put them on the spot about it.

By: misstate

misstate — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:08:54 +0000

and for someone who hates lawyers so much, will sure has no problem retaining one when his butt is in a sling

By: Need For MORE businessmen??????

Need For MORE businessmen?????? — Wed, 05 May 2010 13:17:12 +0000

Oh…and Lee Bright and Shane Martin?

They might have the combined IQ of a secretary at my law firm. See, lawyers have to actually be educated on the lawmaking process and how laws work. Funny little thing called a “JD” that lawyers have to go to school for three years beyond a Bachelor’s Degree to obtain.

Bright and Martin? My guess based on their actions is that their experience with lawmaking dates to watching that School House Rock video back in 3rd grade.

By: Need For MORE businessmen??????

Need For MORE businessmen?????? — Wed, 05 May 2010 13:13:54 +0000

Need for more businessmen: Why don’t you do a little thing we lawyers like to call fact-checking. It is a novel concept for people who contribute to this website. Did you know that it is a myth that the SC Legislature is run by lawyers? Did you know that there are more insurance agents than lawyers in the SC Legislature?????

Will, why don’t you post a breakdown of the members of the legislature by profession so everyone, including me, can know what we are talking about? I CHALLENGE YOU!

By: You make me FITS

You make me FITS — Wed, 05 May 2010 05:23:38 +0000

Real Small business may, I am glad someone realizes these bills only (a) injur S.C. Citizens and cooporations – by lessening payouts for real injuries and (b) help insurance companies by NOT AFFECTING THE DAMN PREMIUMS…insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank about these bills once they pass and continue to raise the preiums up just as high and fast even though payouts are limited for clear violations and breaches of duties owed. Did the our medical tort reform anymore doctor’s here???

By: Watching from afar

Watching from afar — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:17:29 +0000

You seem to forget who also supports all those evil trial lawyers: Defense Lawyers who would have no choice but to become evil trial lawyers themselves, except the evil insurance companies hire them to defend their innocent clients against evil trial lawyers.

Evil trial lawyers usually lose if they insist on going to a jury; and Defense Lawyers get their fees win or lose!

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:08:17 +0000

I was all for tort reform until you said Tom Davis was working on it. Now I am very wary of it.

By: Checking in

Checking in — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:59:59 +0000

I thought that name Bond sounded familiar.

Are you the same R. Howard Bond one that ran against Luke Rankin in the Republican primary in 2008? The one that got 322 votes to his 6,002? The one where he got 68% of the vote in a 3 way primary? That’s a mandate my friend. Although you have the right to free speech, it appears even after his vote on 96-97, they still support him. Sour grapes I think

By: Howard Bond

Howard Bond — Tue, 04 May 2010 20:07:13 +0000

Small business owners are people too! In 1996 – 1997 then democrat Sen. Luke Rankin, supported the so-called “hospitality tax” of 3% and gained support by touting it’s “sun set clause.” 501 still congested. Inflation is on the rise. Will the “sun set” on the tax after they finish the hwy 31 to hwy 701 connector? What are the traffic counts on these fine roads?