Andrew Catton wrote:
 > David Shaffer wrote:
>> I have no doubt that
>> chances of being sued are higher in the U.S. but that says nothing of
>> the chances of being sued friviously.
> 
> 
> Well, OK, but I think part of the issue is (at least the perception)  
> that in the US less issues are considered frivolous.  One country's  
> frivolity is another country's multi-million(billion?)-dollar  industry :)
> 
> I haven't considered the question enough to be willing to say  anything 
> about which definition works better overall.

don't forget that the other main difference between the tort system in 
canada and the US is that in Canada we do not have a concept of punitive 
damages.

So when I spill hot coffee on myself I can maybe sue McDonald's for 
medical expenses, any lost wages if I was unable to work, and possibly 
even a litle for pain and sufferring but I'm not going to become a 
millionaire out of it.

The argument for punitive damages is interesting: basically that without 
it, a large corporation may have no incentive to avoid minor injuries 
(cheaper just to pay the medical bills of those who sue).  It takes a 
multi-million dollar lawsuit to get their attention.  I personally 
believe that if the non-punitive portion went to the plaintiff and the 
punitive portion was directed to charity or something we would have the 
attention of businesses and still manage to keep to a minimum the number 
of people filing frivolous lawsuits to make their millions.

Why am I weighing in on this thread again? :)

Julian