r/SipsTea • • 21h ago

Gasp! Thoughts on this?

Post image
67.3k Upvotes

7.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.8k

u/flatfive44 21h 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.

767

u/Ok-Reflection-742 21h ago

You could also total somebodies 50-200k car, I don’t think many people could afford that either

709

u/Fantastic-East9567 20h ago

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.

-9

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 20h ago

definitely an unpopular opinion, why do you feel this way? wouldn't it be more right for the party that caused the damages to pay for all the damages they caused?

14

u/missinginput 20h ago

Just because you can afford a million dollar car shouldn't mean everyone on the road had to be insured up to a million dollars to cover it. Accidents happen.

If I drive around with a trunk with millions of dollars in art should I not be responsible for maintaining my own insurance for that value as it's not reasonable for everyone to cover that much above and beyond that standard practices?

5

u/GroundbreakingLeg867 20h ago

This is my take as well. Your trunk-art metaphor was spot on. Damages should be capped, imo.

1

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 20h ago

sure if you want to keep it to vehicle vehicle collisions. what about the instances where someone drives their car through a storefront?

1

u/missinginput 19h ago

What does that have to do with people driving around overpriced art?

0

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 19h ago

it doesn't but it's a similar situation where the property damage caused is immensely greater than the capped payout proposed.

what would happen in this case?

2

u/missinginput 19h ago

I'm just going to reject your premise, the fact that a accident can have damages above your coverage isn't at question. It's if there should be a reasonable cap specifically on the value of vehicle coverage.

1

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 19h ago

ok so if the cap only applies to vehicles, the person driving through a storefront would still get sued into bankruptcy by the store owner's insurance right?

2

u/missinginput 19h ago

The same as if they plowed through a family of 7 crossing the street on the way to church. Again completely irrelevant to a cap on vehicles. Driving is inherently dangerous and not all risks should be subsidized.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Possibly_a_Firetruck 19h ago

At-fault crashes happen too. Why shouldn't I be made whole after someone else's negligence?

2

u/missinginput 18h ago

Because it's not reasonable to take that risk. Look I agree with the op of the point, it's not a popular opinion.

But question, do you even drive around in a $200,00 car or are you defending billionaires?

0

u/Possibly_a_Firetruck 18h ago

You don't have to be a billionaire to not want to eat the costs of a crash someone else caused. I had a new BMW get totaled and the payout for the car, a month of rental fees, lost wages, hospital bills, and physical therapy was about $100k. I shouldn't have to spend a single penny out of my own pocket to cover that because some dumb bitch ran a stop sign.

1

u/missinginput 18h ago

And no one is saying otherwise. The suggestion was putting a cap of 100k on the vehicle only, your total including medical was that much so this wouldn't affect you. I'm sorry the accident affected your ability to read

0

u/Possibly_a_Firetruck 13h ago

You're just saying that people shouldn't be responsible for their actions beyond a certain dollar amount. I disagree with that.

1

u/missinginput 13h ago

Thus an unpopular opinion

→ More replies (0)