All this stems from the US’ general aversion to awarding costs.
Costs shouldn’t be awarded all the time, but in the most egregious cases they definitely should. It shouldn’t cost the victim of a frivilous lawsuit to represent themselves in court, they should get that back from the party that filed, after the lawsuit is ruled frivilous. Similarly, costs shouldn’t always be awarded when the defendent is convicted, particularly if there are certain mitigating circumstances.
If the US had a general mechanism for awarding costs to the defendent of a frivilous lawsuit, rather than just specific circumstances, then a lot of this bullshit wouldn’t happen.
All this stems from the US’ general aversion to awarding costsproper regulation.
FTFY. As other comments have pointed out, why is it that individuals have to sue for damages when in civilized countries there are regulators to enforce compliance?
All this stems from the US’ general aversion to awarding costs.
Costs shouldn’t be awarded all the time, but in the most egregious cases they definitely should. It shouldn’t cost the victim of a frivilous lawsuit to represent themselves in court, they should get that back from the party that filed, after the lawsuit is ruled frivilous. Similarly, costs shouldn’t always be awarded when the defendent is convicted, particularly if there are certain mitigating circumstances.
If the US had a general mechanism for awarding costs to the defendent of a frivilous lawsuit, rather than just specific circumstances, then a lot of this bullshit wouldn’t happen.
FTFY. As other comments have pointed out, why is it that individuals have to sue for damages when in civilized countries there are regulators to enforce compliance?