JIB in the News

[Ideologue]

Raz, I suggest making long-term bets with Yi at high odds on elections.  When they pay off, the drop in his standard of living will motivate him, as a rational economic actor, to consider voting Democratic.

[Razgovory]

Raz, I suggest making long-term bets with Yi at high odds on elections.  When they pay off, the drop in his standard of living will motivate him, as a rational economic actor, to consider voting Democratic.

If I wanted him to vote democratic, I'd try to convince everyone to vote Republican. After a few years of Austerity, he'd come around.

[crazy canuck]

Missouri is a UCATA state, and tort damages are several only unless the defendant is more than 50% at fault.

So either the jury found a huge amount of damages, and the $20 million is a fraction of that, or JiB was found to be more than 51% at fault.  Either seems odd, but when you go to a jury, you takes your chances.

Okay, now *that* doesn't make any freaking sense. 

Why, only defendants over 50% of apportioned liability become severally liable for all the damage.  Makes sense to me.  Especially if I am representing defendants who are 50% or less 

[Admiral Yi]

Raz, I suggest making long-term bets with Yi at high odds on elections.  When they pay off, the drop in his standard of living will motivate him, as a rational economic actor, to consider voting Democratic.

I voted for Obama last election.  I voted against recalling the Iowa SC judges who ruled for homomarriage in the last midterm.

The principle reason I'm not interested in going full tribal is because I'm not a member of a core constitutency that your boys are likely to shower with free money.

[Ideologue]

Raz, I suggest making long-term bets with Yi at high odds on elections.  When they pay off, the drop in his standard of living will motivate him, as a rational economic actor, to consider voting Democratic.

I voted for Obama last election.  I voted against recalling the Iowa SC judges who ruled for homomarriage in the last midterm.

Whoa, what?  I totally missed that.  Thought you were going for Romney.

The principle reason I'm not interested in going full tribal is because I'm not a member of a core constitutency that your boys are likely to shower with free money.

Hell, I'm beginning to think that neither am I.

[Admiral Yi]

Hell, I'm beginning to think that neither am I.

Well, you do have the student loan interest rate angle.  Not particularly relevant if you're going IBRP perhaps.

[Ideologue]

Pretty positive it doesn't apply to me.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's bullshit.  It's unjust.

Let's say you are an ordinary Joe who is defrauded out your life savings.  The defendants at fault are Bernie Madoff, a vampiric octopus named Goldie, and BigBadBank.  Bernie declares bankruptcy, and Goldie disappears to the bottom of the sea.  BigBadBank is still alive and solvent however.  A jury finds that between the three BigBadBank is 40% at fault. 

If liability is several only,  that means you only get 40% of your life savings back, from BigBadBank and you bear the burden of going after the others for their share (if there is anything to collect).  You spend your old age begging on the street for loose change.
If liability is joint and several, then you get your life savings back, avoid a life of destitution, and it is up to BigBadBank to go after the deadbeats for their share.

Between you, who is completely innocent, and BigBadBank, who was found to have committed fraud, why should you bear the entirety of any unrecoverable loss?

[Admiral Yi]

Let's say you are an ordinary Joe who is defrauded out your life savings.  The defendants at fault are Bernie Madoff, a vampiric octopus named Goldie, and BigBadBank.  Bernie declares bankruptcy, and Goldie disappears to the bottom of the sea.  BigBadBank is still alive and solvent however.  A jury finds that between the three BigBadBank is 40% at fault. 

If liability is several only,  that means you only get 40% of your life savings back, from BigBadBank and you bear the burden of going after the others for their share (if there is anything to collect).  You spend your old age begging on the street for loose change.
If liability is joint and several, then you get your life savings back, avoid a life of destitution, and it is up to BigBadBank to go after the deadbeats for their share.

Between you, who is completely innocent, and BigBadBank, who was found to have committed fraud, why should you bear the entirety of any unrecoverable loss?

There is no doubt whatsoever that from the POV of the plaintiff it's a sweetheart deal.  What stinks is that BBB, who has only done you .4X damage, is on hook for X damage.  What stinks even worse is the concept that a party that does you .0001X damage is still on the hook for X.

[The Minsky Moment]

You haven't answered the question though.  If you change the rule to several liability, how is that just for the innocent person who only gets 40% of their money back, simply because Bad Guy #1 had two accomplices with no dinero?

[Admiral Yi]

You haven't answered the question though.  If you change the rule to several liability, how is that just for the innocent person who only gets 40% of their money back, simply because Bad Guy #1 had two accomplices with no dinero?

I see your point.

Are you maintaining that in every case involving joint and several liability the parties are accomplices?

[crazy canuck]

You haven't answered the question though.  If you change the rule to several liability, how is that just for the innocent person who only gets 40% of their money back, simply because Bad Guy #1 had two accomplices with no dinero?

I see your point.

Are you maintaining that in every case involving joint and several liability the parties are accomplices?

Put another way, why should the burden be on the innocent party who was wronged to go after the other defendants rather than the other parties who did wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

Put another way, why should the burden be on the innocent party who was wronged to go after the other defendants rather than the other parties who did wrong.

Why should deep pockets pay for the wrong of others?

[crazy canuck]

Put another way, why should the burden be on the innocent party who was wronged to go after the other defendants rather than the other parties who did wrong.

Why should deep pockets pay for the wrong of others?

They are paying for their wrong and they have the pockets to go after the other defendants if they think those other defendents should pay up.

In terms of risk allocation it makes a lot more sense than penalizing the innocent plaintiff.  People are a lot less likely to commit a tortious act if they think there is a risk they might pay 100% of the damages.

[Razgovory]

Put another way, why should the burden be on the innocent party who was wronged to go after the other defendants rather than the other parties who did wrong.

Why should deep pockets pay for the wrong of others?

Because they were in conspiracy with them?