[cl_steele]

in most countries if someone slanders you, injures you etc. youre able to sue him however in new zealand [except in exceptional circumstances] this is not the case and compensation is dished out from a government fund ... which do you think is more appropriate?
on the cons- for suing people we have cases like in america where it is abused a woman sued mcdonalds for serving her a hot coffe and won several million dollars from it...
pros - you can exact adequate compensation from someone for whatever wrong they might have done you

for the new zealand model;
pros - it stops people filing frivolous law suits and it enables a fairer system where people/companies cant be liable for exorbitant amounts of money [ the maccy d's example]
cons - anyone can claim i once heard from my mum, a new zealander, that a burgler who impaled himself on a fence whilst escaping the home was compensated [because it was his 'job' as was a man escaping from jail who was maimed whilst falling off a wall or some such because this was also deemed to be 'a job'

what do you lot think?

[ckingalt]

People should be permitted to sue, however if the judge/jury decides that a suit is blatantly frivolous then the plaintiff should be liable for the defendant’s court costs.