Yes, a party should be required to bring forth all of their proof of reasoning behind a lawsuit when a lawsuit is filed. I think of the many cases that may have come up where a mental imbalance, bias, or grudge could have triggered lawsuits instead of having a valid complaint against a violation of a law. As someone who likes to think the best of others, it is easy to imagine a case where someone with opposing behavior would intentionally attempt to charge against someone with pure intent to harm them. Providing proof of the allege facts in a lawsuit can not only make the lawsuit itself more efficient, but could potentially avoid false accusations wasted time and wasted money in court.
E-FILING - The new process by which state and federal courts initiate and/or adjudicate cases is through an electronic filing system. the one hand, it removes the time and expense of either physically traveling to the court to do routine filings or mailing documents that takes increasingly long amounts of time. On the other hand, courts have used this as a way to generate revenue by charging electronic filing fees on what would otherwise cost a fraction of the same amount by simply mailing them. For example, to file a single page document with the Oakland County Circuit Court affirming that an attorney has mailed an Answer to the Plaintiff, the Court charges $5.15. A stamp costs $.45. Is the convenience worth the cost? Should a party have to pay for that? Should the court charge for things that used to cost nothing and still is as easy as opening an email? The convenience is not worth the cost. A party should not have to pay such a significantly higher cost to use electronic filing. Having a higher cost is one thing, but paying 91% more, per the example given, is outrageous. If the court is going to charge for something that costs nothing to them, perhaps they should be budgeting this extra money towards court procedures that people would agree to (i.e. helping with costs of lawyer fees for people who cannot afford them).
Bertman v Norden, et al 2004: Four friends from Ohio went to Michigan to go snowmobiling. They had a crash and Bertman was injured and sued the others. The Ohio court held that Michigan law (snow mobilers assume all risk) applied because the accident occurred there, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld this decision. Fair? Yes, this is fair. Planning a trip that involves any activities with have high probability of injury should also involve looking at the potential risks beforehand. Snowmobiling trips usually call for pre-planning and purchasing a tag or permit to ride on trails. The snow mobilers coming assume all risk when choosing to visit another state to snow mobile. You could compare this to choosing to visit an amusement park for the thrill rides. You know ahead of time that there is potential for injury, but you choose to go anyway and enter the park at your own risk. Therefore, if you end up getting whip lash while riding on your favorite ride, you will not sue the amusement park.
Should there be statute of limitations on any action? How about on actions in which the damages are severe, such as in Norgart where a person died years later? Is it a function of proofs? What arguments could you make to strike a statute of limitations like that?
Yes, a statute of limitations should be present on any action. Having an average 3 years to file a lawsuit is plenty of time in most cases. Giving people more time to file a lawsuit is opening doors for false suits and random attacks. However, I do believe if there is enough proof, for example fraud, the case should be approved for review. I also believe the statute should not apply to cases such as in…