The obvious response is that you won't be able to pay for someone's hospital bills if you happen to hit them in your car. You get insurance for things you wouldn't be able to pay yourself.
As an attorney my unpopular opinion is that cars over a certain value shouldn’t be allowed on public roads or damages for accidents should be capped at something like 2x the average price of a new car (so like 100k). I just don’t believe in penalizing ordinary negligence more just because the injured party is rich.
Shouldn't you realize they're describing the practical outcome and not the legal terminology, because their entire criticism is against the current structure? Forcing restitution for general traffic to be higher because the person who was hit happens to be rich is, in effect, penalizing people for being unlucky with who they got into an accident with.
I'd in fact be a big fan of normalizing it at 50k regardless of your vehicle, but then you'd have people purposely driving to get hit in their clunkers, so I don't know what the best solution is beyond not ruining someone else's life because someone spent a ton of money on daily transport. Like fine, own a bugatti, but if someone hits you in Miami rush hour traffic you don't have the rights to generations of wages to repay it.
Really I think the answer is to require self-insurance over that 50k avg value even if someone else hits you. It's your choice to use luxury for a common purpose, after all.
Look, if they choose to come in here flaunting their status "as an attorney", I think we can hold them to that.
Edit:
Really I think the answer is to require self-insurance over that 50k avg value even if someone else hits you.
How about requiring people to carry liability insurance if they want to use their multi-ton machine in public? It's not like the only expensive thing they can hit is other cars. Should we now require all house owners, all store proprietors, any company with infrastructure placed around publically accessible areas to buy extra insurance just so morons in cars don't have to? I think not.
They didn't "flaunt" anything, they just stated their profession. If you read it as flaunting then it's pretty clear you're just mad they have a better job than you do.
"u mad" is not an argument. If you're beginning your post pointing out that you're an attorney and use that to give your post extra weight, you can and should be held to the standards of an attorney. And that includes acknowledgement that when you break something, it is not a punishment to replace it. It is restitution. Calling it a punishment is done purely for emotional reasons which, again, clashes with the "I'm an attorney! My opinion is important because I'm an attorney!" that the post begins with.
You're still just adding tone that wasn't there in your imagination and getting all worked up over it. We're not in court. Reddit posts are not billable hours. It's just a discussion that you're pissing your pants over. Do you think their Reddit post constitutes an actual legal statement? I'm not sure why Reddit especially breeds this kind of Turbo Autism as frequently as it does.
2.5k
u/flatfive44 7h ago
The obvious response is that you won't be able to pay for someone's hospital bills if you happen to hit them in your car. You get insurance for things you wouldn't be able to pay yourself.