A woman drives around using the tires for 3 years and they claim the tire was defective? I'm lucky if mine last 2 years before I have to replace them. Maybe if she had only driven around for 3 days, I might make a small connection - but even then, I doubt it.

I propose luser's LAWYER pays -- and is forbidden to bill those payments to luser client.

Lawyers, as officers of the court, should act as gatekeepers. When they fail, they should pay. We expect crackpots to try to press suits, but we should also expect their lawyers to know better.

Plus, lawyers are likely to have deeper pockets than the plaintiff.

Other points:
-> It might be useful for judges to make a determination as to whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous. There is such as thing as honest disagreement, and I can not agree with penalizing folks with an honest complaint who happen, on balance, to lose.

-> This is a dis-incentive for self-representation. I can't decide if that's a pro or con.

-> I'm not sure how to handle corporate suits, which can also be frivolous.

-> I am, of course, insane. No law or rule of order penalizing lawyers will ever pass. Never mind.

Whether or not the loser's lawyer pays, or the client, is irrelavent. The reason for the frivolous lawsuits is that the lawyers are bankrolling the clients with a "you don't pay if we don't win" policy. If the losing party is charged the defendants legal fees, it puts the legal team on the hook for more than just their own costs. Whether or not they pass those costs onto the customer shouldn't matter.

As for the current legal system, judges already have the leeway to charge the losing party legal fees. The problem is that the winning defendant must countersue for legal fees, and the judge (who ultimately makes the determination) is likely to be an old trial lawyer, and friendly to the plaintiff's situation.

What a stupid case... Even if one was dumb enough to believe that the tire went flat due to a defect, and that this defect makes Ford and Firestone liable for the woman's recklessness in hitching a ride with a stranger, the fact remains that these tires were RECALLED VERY PUBLICLY!

I owned three Firestone ATs and got them replaced years ago when the recall occurred. I've even sold the 1997 Explorer they were on. You'd have to have been in a box not to have known about the Firestone recall. It was all over the news. Firestone outlets were replacing millions of tires free of charge. Who could have missed this?

Owen,

She was killed in 2000, and the recall wasn't until 2001. The recall hoopla is probably what led them to sue in the first place.

Ah... I see. Even then, the case is silly. She could have gotten a flat with any tire, and she didn't need to hitch a ride. Prior to the recall I got a flat with one of my Firestone ATs, which is why I only traded in three tires. I put on the spare and went on my way; I didn't hop into a car with a total stranger.