I wholeheartedly disagree, Richard.

While juries have awarded ridiculous damage claims in many lawsuits (most of which are reduced either on the judge or on appeal), the blame has to rest with the lawyers who take such obvious cases of "injury by misadventure" and try to lay the blame on others, strictly to make money, to try to make new law and for the publicity a really bizarre case always generates.

The case I cited was a non-jury trial and the suit was thrown out by the judge. I lay the blame directly at the feet of the lawyer who filed and argued the case. If he hadn't been a greedy egomaniac, he would have told the jerk "tough shit" and refused to waste his and everyone else's time and money. The law is clear on the fact that drunkenness is not a mitigating factor in any number of crimes (on the premise that no one made the accused drink to start with). So why, then, should a drunk who exercised VERY bad judgment be allowed to argue in a civil case that someone else is responsible for what happened to him?

How you can blame the legal aid system, I don't know. I think legal aid is a necessity for people who can't afford to defend themselves in criminal matters or who have legitimate claims against other parties. It's at the mercy of the lawyers who file the suits because it's not in a position to judge whether it's justified until AFTER the trial and court's ruling.

I stand by my claim that greedy and/or unscrupulous lawyers have severely curtailed everyone's quality of life by fostering such a litigious society just so they can line their pockets, either directly or thru the publicity a sensational trial generates.

cheers,

david