No, it does not, its exactly the other way around. English Rule protects the innocent, who did not commit a crime, as they'll eventually win the case.
American Rule protects the rich (and those in power, such as police, public prosecutor, etc), as it allows them to bully the poor who can't afford a lawyer, or lose so much money that their interests are harmed. A clear example of that is patent trolls.
The rich can afford in either system, but the poor can only afford in English Rule. It should not be about poor vs rich but about truth (ie. guilty vs innocent).
How does loser-pays protect the poor? As noted above, unless you have significant resources, bringing suit against a large corporate entity is extremely risky, as you could get stuck paying for their army of lawyers, paralegals, and investigators.
In the US system, a poor person can bring suit, using a lawyer working on contingency, and not fear for being stuck should they lose.
Your argument seems to hinge on the "correct" party always winning, but that's far from the case.
With loser pays, bringing a suit is risky (with the risk depending on the risk of losing the suit).
With the US system, there is no way to get justice in many cases, even when you're obviously right, because the (non-recoverable) legal costs exceed the amount by which you have been wronged (and the opponent knows that).
This is IMO part of the problem with common law: the judge rarely inquires into matters before them, instead relying on arguments presented by lawyers, so the party which can afford better lawyers tends to win.
In continental law, judges role is more like an investigator; his/hers role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the code. They are the ones questioning witnesses.
If you can't afford an attorney, you can get one appointed, it is like that in every system AFAIK.
> Your argument seems to hinge on the "correct" party always winning, but that's far from the case.
Of course it does.
If the correct party does not usually win (with a few exceptions, being rounding errors) then your legal system, and democracy, is indeed very much broken.
If the police bust someone for murder, and this person gets sued, gets a fair trial, and gets incarcerated in jail for murder we, civilians/voters, must be able to assume that the system worked correctly. If this is not the case, if it is "normal" (too high percentage) innocent people get behind bars, that is a high priority problem. There's always going to be false positives, sure, but in general we must be able to assume one is a true positive.
Now, in English law the poor could sue, and win, if they're in the right. In American law, they can't afford a lawsuit. If they get sued for whatever, they'll be more likely to settle, without being on the good end of the stick. I can only define that as class justice.
There are limits to the claims, btw [1] [2]. Also, the amounts have to be reasonable.
Also, I believe @xyzal is correct in describing the difference between civil and common law. The problem you described is much less of a problem in civil law.
If you can't afford an attorney, you can get one appointed,
In the US, that only applies to indigent defendants in criminal cases. It does not apply to anybody with any semblance of financial stability and does not apply to anybody in civil cases.
I used to work in litigation support and something that stuck in my mind was an article some years ago in a trade magazine about how a new trend in venture capital from the UK was funding American lawsuits.
I always think of that when someone is sneering at the American legal system or blaming Americans for everything they interact with globally.
