Mark, One of my ex-colleagues and friend (a Frenchman) used to be a crash investigator for Eurocopter, and one of his favorite topics would be the crazy lawsuits in which he had to testify in the US. In one case, the lawyer put large portraits of the Eurocopter board members on chairs facing the jury, and asked them to have a close look at these nasty aliens who routinely kill American citizens to make a profit, or something to that extent... His opinion was that the US system was so twisted, there was no way the aircraft manufacturer could ever win in a lawsuit.
Since he had a firsthand knowledge of both legal systems, we discussed in lengths the differences between them. You pointed at payment of the other party's legal costs as a deterrent for frivolous lawsuits. True, but a more important factor is limitation of liabilities (i.e. the law defines what is the maximum liability for a death, an injury, etc.), and perhaps even more important, the absence of punitive damages (where they exist in Europe, they go to the state's coffers, certainly not the plaintiff's pocket!). Meaning that in most of Europe, a law firm cannot win a fortune over a lawsuit, so lawyers are not as eager to chase ambulances. Another major difference is most European countries would not have trial-by-jury for such matters as manufacturer's liability. Since it is much easier to convince a technically and legally ignorant jury than a panel of professional judges, it sure makes a difference. Now, the worrying thing is it seems the European judicial system is slowly buy surely drifting towards the same path as the US one. Serge Vidal Melbourne, Australia
