Quote
PHDram
But I'm not sure the frivolous lawsuit complaint is so much about judges but more on the motivation of individual complaintants and their lawyers for seeking compensation over "frivolous damages". For example in this case how much did the complaintant actually "suffer"? Or maybe a better question is how much can one suffer from poor officiating?
Again, that assumes that the "suffering" thing is the genuine motivation. That can just be a tool to leverage all sorts of things that hold large entities like the NFL accountable in ways they don't like.
If you get hung up on taking it literally, then, you miss that---but what you miss is actually the real point. In the case, the suit claims that the NFL does not hold its own officials accountable for poor calls. If you act like the "suffering" routine is the real point, you miss that.
On top of it, and to change the subject, over the years, forces have acted to make sure that actual real suffering gets trivialized. Like McDonalds claiming that a woman got millions for coffee spilled on her. That was one huge lie on their part. She was scalded and suffered severe burns because the coffee was kept at such a high temp, and she only asked for medical costs, which McDonalds denied her. The jury awarded her a couple of million, which she did not ask for, as punitive damages because McDonald's was clearly liable for medical costs but stonewalled paying them.
So there's a couple of reasons why I don't take complaints about litigation very seriously. Lawsuits of this kind are declining, not going up, and at the same time a lot of people accept a lot of myths about "trivial lawsuits."
....