Could someone please explain this to me? I'm not familiar with common law system. Someone mentioned here, that this is one of the reasons for "litigation culture" in US.
Generally speaking, a "frivilous" claim is one where the person filing it has no reasaonable belief that he or she has a right to recover anything from the person being sued. One of the problems we have in this country is that even if you win a case, you still have to spend the money to defend yourself, and you cannot recover your money from that person. Other countries have a system where the loser has to pay the winner's attorneys' fees. We do not. Thus, many people file claims for small amounts, knowing that it will cost the person more to defend themselves than it will to give up a quick settlement. It has been a huge problem here in Claifornia in particlur.
This is shocking. And somewhat stupid. The "loser pays" is one of more important principles in civil law countries.
Exactly. It's tough to say which is "better". Each concept cures one problem while causing another.
ok, but if somebody sues me and I spend a lot of my precious time/money defending, can I sue this person back for damages?
Like if I would sue Madonna. She makes like 100 thousand dollars an hour.
I the frivilous suit context, the answer is generally no. The suit is not frivilous if the attorney had a good faith belief in the merits of the case. Thats a pretty broad standard.
but I mean, would she win (if she could prove she actually lost money)?