Suing People!

In my opinion, not all lawsuits are the same. Some suits are brought about simply for a decision, not for monetary/compensatory purposes. For instance, when two parties disagree as to the provisions of a contract or agreement, and one or both parties resist arbitration, then a party may bring suit for the state or federal courts to decide on the matter.

I think in some cases, it is entirely proper to seek legal redress, if your purposes are not for gain.

 

Hmm..tricky one this! I definitely have to declare an interest here; as a bloodsucking lawyer I would have to say yes , but as a responsible Christian lawyer I generally try and dissuade clients from this course of action - it's a lot of heartache, you tend to throw good money after bad and the only people guaranteed to benefit are the lawyers. We also increasingly live in a litigious culture and a climate of critiscism (Americans more than the Brits I think although we're catching up fast). There are also side issues to this like Paul's injunction concerning lawsuits in I Cor (yes I know that is about suing other Christians but I believe there are principles to be followed there).

That said, sometimes litigation is necessary, IMO as a last resort or to protect the rights of the vulnerable. I can't really give advice on individual cases such as your daughter's, but I wouldn't blame you if you felt you had no option other than to litigate - it sounds like she's had a pretty raw deal. If however your motive is to try and prevent the Dr from messing up others, what about a formal complaint to his professional governing body (I don't know whether you have such an animal in the States, but we have the General Medical Council who investigate allegations of incompetence or misconduct) - that approach may be more appropriate for you, I don't know.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I've encouraged people to use small claims court to resolve their differences, when all other forms of resolution have been exhausted. There comes a point where allowing a wrong to go unrighted would be equivalent to participating in the wrong. As a Christian, we should not participate in a wrong.

I encouraged an ex-girlfriend to sue a car wash when they broke her antenna (it had been retracted, but the attendent pulled it back out). She won $150.00, the cost of having the antenna replaced.

I encouraged a friend of mine to sue a mechanic who took $700.00 from my friend, and did not do the work promised. He won the $700.00, plus was awarded $300.00 in punitive damages.

The courts, especially small claims courts, are there for resolving differences that cannot be otherwise resolved. It's not inappropriate to utilize them.

 

My personal opinion is that Paul was dealing with Christians. First step should be to notify the doctor that you believe he was negligent/incompetent. (again, my opinion) Then go ahead and do what is nessesary to warn others that he may not be the best practitioner of medicine. If lawsuit is needed then do it.

 

Gina! Gina! Gina! Where is your church membership, FBC of Corinth?? Sister, let me encourage you to examine 1 Corinthians 6: 1-7 and then let the Holy Spirit examine your heart! Clearly the word teaches believers that it is better to be "defrauded" than to drag another person into a court! Even if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are right and the doctor is wrong! Just suppose, just suppose--you drag the "lame brain" into court and you win and he has to cough the "bula-bula" up--but years down the line when the storm passes for the doctor--and he just so happens to out of the blue attend a crusade where you are on the stage singing your heart out(hypothethically situated here!!)and he sees you and says, "Oh, but NO! That believer took me to the cleaners and now she's up there praisin'??????? Forget that!!" Then what do you do?????

Even if you are right--the word says to take the wrong!!

Your buddy,
Blackbird

 

Clearly the word teaches believers that it is better to be "defrauded" than to drag another person into a court!

But that would be enabling, and allowing, another person to do wrong, not just to you, but potentially to another. By that reckoning, Ron Goldman was wrong to sue OJ Simpson in civil court.

 

He was wrong. Everyone with common sense knows that OJ was innocent.

 

Johnv--look again, brother! The word addresses believers--of which I am speaking to Sister Gina! Believers are not to drag others into court--the word implies that the heathen drag the heathen into court! The heathen may drag a believer into court--but the believer is not to drag the beliver or the heathen into court--the word still stands for "BELIEVERS"--better to be defrauded!!

your buddy,
Blackbird

 

My favorite kind of sarcasm is that which is done with a completely straight face.

 

Oh....

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I suppose this is one of those many instances where both positions have biblical support: One one hand, a believer should not sue a believer. On the other hand, a believer should not enable another to commit a wrongdoing. I suppose the best course of action is the decision of the individual.

 

I think people should be held accountable for their mistakes. If that means taking them to court...then so be it. Especially when it concerns the health and well being of a human being. Those are high stakes, doctors know that. That's why they have to carry malpractice insurance.

And if you have a problem with keeping the money you might be awarded...give it to a needy cause. The money isn't why you would do this anyway. It's to hold someone accountable for their mistakes, and keep them from hurting someone else.

 

Now, here me on this one--I ain't mad at anybody--but what are you guys gonna do with 1 Corinthians 6: 1-7?? Seems to me that the decision here does not rest with the individual--but its God Almighty's decision for the believer. We sue, then, not for the money but so that he won't hurt somebody else---I'm gonna need you guys to bring me some scripture forward that you can stand on with that statement!! Where you are standin' in your minds now is on sinkin' sand! At least 1 Corinthians 6: 1-7 is rock solid and I can pitch my tent(body and its decisions) there and obey it to the fulliest!!

Let the heathen teach the heathen a lesson, but not the believer. I just believe that much of what was written here was written on sinkin' sand!

Your buddy,
Blackbird

 

I know what scripture says about that it is better to be defrauded.
But let me give you a real situation. A man I know who was buidling a house for some people was not paid and so he had to take out a loan to pay his debt. Now he is strapped with a huge debt that shackles him.

Would you sue or not?

 

I'm sorry, but the believer must obey scripture. The Lord God has far more to teach us in our refusing to bring others to court than the world has in teaching us its ok to sue somebody's "Pants" off!--better to be wronged and not seek revenge or restitution.

That fella will get over it(having to make a loan) by and by--and in not seeking revenge or restituion--the contractor is "heaping hot coals upon their heads" literally driving the couple who refuses to pay to repentance. Look it up, its written down!

Your buddy,
Blackbird

 

Blackbird,

If what you say is absolutely always true - Why did Paul appeal to Caesar? In effect, Paul was appealing his case to the highest court in the Roman Empire. I think the principle is the same. Granted, Paul had been falsely accused and dragged into court by nonbelievers but he exercised all of his "rights" as a Roman Citizen in the pursuit of justice.

The Missouri Baptist Convention recently sued five of its own agencies because the trustees of those agencies violated their charters. Do we not hold fellow believers responsible for their actions? Since we as a convention and they as agencies are all incorporated under state law are we doing more than Paul did in appealing to Caesar for justice?

[ July 24, 2003, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: Hardsheller ]

 

Hi gb93433. Wouldn't a prudent builder have been "paid" in installments as the job progressed? In that way, wouldn't he have only been "beaten" out of some, rather than much? latterrain77