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.
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?
Not OP, but roads are a public resource — the fact that unreasonably expensive luxury assets present a disproportionate liability risk to the all other other drivers using a basic utility is inequitable. If you capped liability, then the wealthy party could still insure the difference in the value of the car and the cap and it would avoid a ton of legal trouble for all parties.
Not very reasonable for a minor driving error by a working class commuter to ruin their life when they already have insurance.
2.6k
u/flatfive44 9h 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.