are there any lawyers on this forum?

[LoveBunny]

I'm a court reporter, not a lawyer, but I've taken depositions in the process of trying to get a class certified. Just my lay opinion, but I can't imagine that getting certified as a class.

[Sloan]

I am a commercial litigation lawyer, but not a class action lawyer. Based on my limited knowledge of the 'class action' issues, I think that LoveBunny is most likely correct - the essence of qualifying for a class action is that the nature of the claims and defenses are all so similar, that the court could fairly (to both sides) adjudicate all of the issues in one forum, as the proof to be offered by both sides would be nearly identical in every case. I think that would be tough to establish where the Defendant (Porsche) would want to be able to introduce evidence of how an individual motor had been used / abused / not cared for properly by the various owners, service history, etc.

However, now that you have me thinking about it, I guess it would not be all that different from the medical device class actions, where doctors or device makers would want to show how each patient had different problems, health history, risk factors, etc., so perhaps it would just be a matter of finding a good lawyer / firm to do it ...

[LoveBunny]

^^^

although, people are usually sympathetic towards those with medical problems, people who have lost their house in a flood, lived in a stinky FEMA trailer, etc. But how many will feel bad for some "poor guy" whose Porsche blew an engine?

Interesting though about class actions, the silicone breast implant class action went forward and they were taken off the market. After 15 years of testing, they are back, and from what I understand, there is not one single piece of conclusive evidence that silicone actually caused the ailments the women complained of. Sure, a bunch of women with the implants might have had certain issues, but so have a bunch of other women without the implants. This is just my limited knowledge though. I'm definitely no expert.

Sometimes the whole legal system is just a big game it seems like.

[dmcutter]

"Sometimes the whole legal system is just a big game it seems like."

True dat. I'm a consulting engineer and took some continuing ed a few years back on expert witness testimony for engineers. Best continuing ed I've ever taken. The sad thing is that it is a big game and it's not about justice or who's right and who's wrong-it's about who can discredit the other side's experts in front of a jury. It completely changed the way I write my reports. Now everything I write or say is framed under the premise "how would I defend that under cross examination?"

[LoveBunny]

Hey, but at least now you can charge those expert witness fees.

I took a deposition of a real estate agent who was acting as an expert in a case. They asked her what she was charging and it was some seriously low amount. After she left both attorneys agreed she'd never acted as an expert before or she would have known to charge more.

[Ofishbein]

Originally Posted by dmcutter

"Sometimes the whole legal system is just a big game . . . it's not about justice or who's right and who's wrong-it's about who can discredit the other side's experts in front of a jury. "

Sad but true. I remember talking to a friend who was young and naive in law school. She said that a seasoned atttorney advised her that, contrary to its intent, the law has nothing to do with justice. It's a set of rules you play a game by and whoever plays the game better wins. Sometimes the innocent are guilty, and sometimes the guilty go free. If you can't live with that, don't go into the profession. She changed her career goal and is now a law professor.

[Frodo]

Quote:

"Sad but true. I remember talking to a friend who was young and naive in law school. She said that a seasoned atttorney advised her that, contrary to its intent, the law has nothing to do with justice. It's a set of rules you play a game by and whoever plays the game better wins. Sometimes the innocent are guilty, and sometimes the guilty go free. If you can't live with that, don't go into the profession. She changed her career goal and is now a law professor."

Posted by Ofishbein.

Brings to mind the old expression, 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach'

It’s basically a system where one side presents their case (to include discrediting their opposition’s case) that paints a picture that’s often not very close to “the truth”. (I can’t get the image of Jack Nicholsan out of my head as I type that!) And their adversary presents their case (likewise casting doubt on the opposition’s case) that, as well, is typically not all that close to the truth, but in the opposite direction. When “the system” works, the judge/jury finds that elusive truth, somewhere in the middle. In close cases, however, presentation can make the whole difference, which is why the side with the most bucks often wins the case. The best attorneys are good theater, and in those close cases, that well-effected drama can swing the balance.

But like the trial attorneys say, that’s the system that’s developed over the centuries, and it’s a heck of a lot better that the judicial system that exists in much of the rest of the world. Devising a better one is tougher than one might suppose.

[BoxsterLewis]

Im a young engineer and my IMS failled 2 weeks ago and warranty wont pay. I am screwed now I have called a couple lawyers and one has said i dont have a case bc the car was used and im waiting to hear back from another. this sucks..

[LoveBunny]

Originally Posted by Frodo

Quote:

"Sad but true. I remember talking to a friend who was young and naive in law school. She said that a seasoned atttorney advised her that, contrary to its intent, the law has nothing to do with justice. It's a set of rules you play a game by and whoever plays the game better wins. Sometimes the innocent are guilty, and sometimes the guilty go free. If you can't live with that, don't go into the profession. She changed her career goal and is now a law professor."

Posted by Ofishbein.

Brings to mind the old expression, 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach'

It’s basically a system where one side presents their case (to include discrediting their opposition’s case) that paints a picture that’s often not very close to “the truth”. (I can’t get the image of Jack Nicholsan out of my head as I type that!) And their adversary presents their case (likewise casting doubt on the opposition’s case) that, as well, is typically not all that close to the truth, but in the opposite direction. When “the system” works, the judge/jury finds that elusive truth, somewhere in the middle. In close cases, however, presentation can make the whole difference, which is why the side with the most bucks often wins the case. The best attorneys are good theater, and in those close cases, that well-effected drama can swing the balance.

But like the trial attorneys say, that’s the system that’s developed over the centuries, and it’s a heck of a lot better that the judicial system that exists in much of the rest of the world. Devising a better one is tougher than one might suppose.

I think our system tries to do what it's supposed to, but of course when lawyers are involved everything gets complicated. I've seen a jury be given a two-hour video of a doctor with a thick accent testifying about some neurological condition. There is no way you are going to tell me that for two hours twelve lay people sat there and paid close attention to AND understand some dude who sounds like Triumph the Insult Comic Dog ramble on about intervertebral disks.