|
|
|
|
|
|
by majormajor
1436 days ago
|
|
|
The rest of my post is actually saying the system sucks regardless of who's getting the short stick today. I didn't interpret "don't make it to trial" as "100% settle" - my initial assumption was that they got thrown out instead. Probably it's a mix, that's a fair point. Cases being settled, to me, though, still suggest that we would do better in a system where "bothering to fight it" isn't a question of deep pockets, and buying people off isn't an option, and things actually end up in front of judges. For transparency alone, vs confidential settlements. |
|
|
According to the source the OP cited, the vast majority settle (according to the source's source, it seems like 10-20% are thrown out.)
They list the primary reason that cases settle isn't a question of deep pockets. It's that the plaintiff's attorney makes a case for the jury amount to be $X-$Y dollars and Y-X is a small enough spread that everyone would rather just settle the case than go through a jury trial when they are 90%+ (I made up that percentage) in agreement. That is, when they agree the defendant owes $XXX +/- 5%. Why waste the time on the last few thousand when they can split the difference and go home?
Meanwhile, if you're considered about regulatory capture, a jury and not a bench trial seem better. For what it's worth, the US system totally lets the judge decide the entire matter if both sides agree to waive the jury. It seems like that's the case in ~25-33% of cases that make their way to trial.