CasualCantaloupe

CasualCantaloupe t1_isrl2e4 wrote

Is it bad faith to exercise a right so important that it makes it into the Constitution three times? Yes, the insurance company calls the shots on litigation strategy but when the actual trial starts, the defendant is the one facing a jury of their peers, not State Farm.

Justice delayed is justice denied, sure, but it's a question of some months we're talking about here between district and circuit. Where are we to draw the line to say it is proper to abrogate the defendant's rights in the interest of swift resolution for the plaintiff?

I'm genuinely unsure about how I'll vote on this initiative. I appreciate your sharing from you perspective but there are other things to consider for people who do not have a business interest (or have an opposing business interest) in the matter.

3

CasualCantaloupe t1_isr4id5 wrote

I'll play:

  1. The right to a jury is one of our most cherished societal rights and already has many limitations on it.

  2. District courts are already backed up; there won't be a significant decrease in time between initiation and verdict for many of the borderline cases. The overwhelming majority of cases settle regardless.

  3. Plaintiff can already proceed with a 10-104 in cases under $30k and won't need to call an expert and incur the corresponding expenses.


Editing to add some more: this applies to more than motor torts. This would raise the threshold for all civil cases: this means that virtually no non-commercial landlord-tenant dispute can have a jury trial (few enough as it is at 15k); many non-commercial debt collection cannot have a jury trial; fewer contract disputes can have a jury trial.

It's great to have this conversation as a state but you have to think about more than what was presented above.

7