I guess I'll put it this way. In the event someone's negligence causes me injury, I will want to be compensated. Not made into an overnight millionaire, but compensated justly. So, eliminating the right to bring civil suit or for the court to set compensation on a case by case basis is not something I want to do.
But the basic formula is this:
There has to be injury. No injury, no money, burden of proof on the accuser.
The use or consumption or some other attribute (usually a material, design, or workmanship flaw) of the product has to be the cause of the injury.
Ideally, the company or person whose actions caused the injury has to be aware that the product or action could be reasonably anticipated to cause injury by virtue of inherent danger, negligence, or faulty design or construction of the product. However that awareness may not have to be present.
Unfortunately, there no longer has to be an expectation that people will have enough common sense to not be injured by using a product incorrectly. (That's why there are pages of instruction manuals which say things like "Do not use this electric hair dryer while showering." and "Do not run over living things with your lawnmower, serious injury or death may result.", because such admonitions are an affirmative defense against being sued over the unfathomable ability of consumers to do stupid things with products.)
However, now the company has to have failed to anticipate the way the consumer would misuse the product no matter how stupid, and warn against doing so.
That has shifted the burden to the producer (another reason for offshoring manufacturing to subsidiary or foreign firms). So we don't just pay for it as consumers, we pay for it as producers, too, by the loss of jobs.
<<< In the event someone's negligence causes me injury, I will want to be compensated. >>>
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'm not a lawyer, certainly I don't wish to be one, but my understanding is that unless the lawsuit is considered to be frivolous, then a winning defendant rarely if ever can collect attorney fees from the losing plaintiff. And it is very hard to get a lawsuit to be considered frivolous.
Everyone should and is entitled to their day in court if need be. Nobody is disputing that if they have a legitimate case. But if they don't, both plaintiff AND the plaintiff's lawyer need to be held financially liable for wasting the defendant's time and money.
I think this simple rule would eliminate most actually frivolous lawsuits, and rein in lawyers which in today's litigious society, lawyers are rampantly out of control.
