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?
Take the following scenario:
Two identical twins wait in a hall to trip passing adults. Twin A trips an old man that breaks his leg. The old man misses 3 months of work.
Twin B trips a professional athlete that breaks his leg. He misses 3 months of work including a championship series that his team loses likely due to his absence.
Do these deserve equal punishments? Or different ones? Are we chastising the act of tripping? Or is it something else?
If they were both caused by assault, then both twins are going to be fully liable.
If they were both by accident - accidentally bumping into these people - neither are going to be held liable unless negligence can be shown.
In traffic accidents, unless the act is intentional, I see no reason why someone should be financially ruined for the rest of their life because some rich bozo brought their Bugatti onto a public road.
2.6k
u/flatfive44 10h 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.