We are going to spend some time discussing the maxim of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium in our upcoming Mass Tort Success Course in June.
Course Registration Link: Ray Group - Mass Tort Success
Hotel Room Block Link: https://bookings.travelclick.com/15542?groupID=3874712#/guestsandrooms
If Plaintiffs lose the current appeal or an appeal to SCOTUS, it will be imperative to have your clients ring their Congressional representatives’ phones off the hook. In fact, it is not too early to start now! If plaintiffs prevail on all appeals, no harm will be done. However, if the outcome is not favorable, we will want to have a head start in letting Congress know we will not go quietly.
Regardless of the outcome of the appeal by 3M (derivative sovereign immunity) the losing side is likely to appeal to SCOTUS.
If Plaintiffs were to lose in the 3M Derivative Sovereign Immunity appeal currently before the 11th Circuit or later before SCOTUS, would this necessarily end any possibility that the Plaintiffs would be compensated?
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, is a Latin maxim, that translates as “Wherever there is a right, there is a remedy. “The Supreme Court recognized the applicability of this maxim to our laws as early as 1898. The maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium lies at the very foundation of all systems of law, United States v. Loughrey, 172 US 206 - Supreme Court 1898 at 232.
If you search the Congressional record from the time period shorty after SCOTUS ruled against Plaintiffs in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 US 500 - Supreme Court 1988., often cited by defendants (foreclosing on the plaintiffs remedy in face of a wrong) you may find something that surprises you. It is common for Congress to pass special measures to pay Plaintiffs in individual cases after the highest court in the land has determined that prior acts of Congress have foreclosed on the remedy in the face of the legal wrong.
In theory, when the Courts determine that Congress, through its enactments has foreclosed on a remedy from a tortfeasor, otherwise available to an injured party, it then becomes the responsibility of Congress to compensate the individual. Also in theory, a finding in favor of a government contractor under a derivative sovereign immunity defense should not necessarily remove all liability but instead simply shift the question of liability to the Government itself.
We are not subjects under the yoke of a king, we have rights including those rights that shall not be abridged by the Government itself, including the right to a remedy when legally wronged. While the Courts may not have the power to force the Government to provide that remedy, Congress has an obligation to do so. Like any other obligation imposed on Congress, however, whether that obligation is met has far more to do with politics than justice.
If our government or its contractors cause legal harm to citizens (we are not subjects) , we have the right to a remedy. While the Courts can not force Congress to compensate victims, the obligation to do so still exists.
Sovereign Immunity in the United States is not the same as the Sovereign Immunity enjoyed by Kings. The Sovereign Immunity that does exist in the United States is intended to prevent the States, through State Law and their courts, from interfering in the operation of the Federal Government.
While Sovereign Immunity in the United States may prevent a Court from ordering the Federal Government or its contractors to pay a Plaintiff, the principal of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, would hold that Congress must do so without the need for force from any court.
While Congress cannot be forced by the Courts to pass a bill or take any action to reimburse Plaintiffs, the political fall out from not doing so (if pressed) would make it more probable that Congress might do the right thing.
Why do you think Congress passed a measure to Pay victims Camp Lejeune? While it was the right thing to do and arguably required, Congress cannot be made to take any such action, however, when the political consequences of not doing so might harm the politicians’ future aspirations, they tend to act.
One downside of having Congress pass a bill to pay any such claim is that attorneys fees will likely be slashed to the Federal Tort Claims Maximum of 25% of gross recovery however, this would certainly be better than nothing for both Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
This is a standardised guide to give you an idea of what size you will need, however some brands may vary from these conversions.
Ready to Wear Clothing
Size | XXS - XS | XS - S | S - M | M - L | L - XL | XL - XXL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UK | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
US | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 |
Italy (IT) | 38 | 40 | 42 | 44 | 46 | 48 |
France (FR/EU) | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 42 | 44 |
Denmark | 32 | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 42 |
Russia | 40 | 42 | 44 | 46 | 48 | 50 |
Germany | 32 | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 42 |
Japan | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 |
Australia | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
Korea | 33 | 44 | 55 | 66 | 77 | 88 |
China | 160/84 | 165/86 | 170/88 | 175/90 | 180/92 | 185/94 |
Jeans | 24-25 | 26-27 | 27-28 | 29-30 | 31-32 | 32-33 |
Color: Gray
1 X $113.88
Comments (3)