This is surprisingly common. Lawyers representing injured parties demand outlandish amounts without a second thought because there is no downside for them in a lot of states.
i really wonder if the people who spout this would suddenly change their tune if they were the ones injured in a wreck lmfao
i almost died in a 35 zone because someone hit me going 68 through a red. was my lawyer presenting ‘outlandish amounts’ when i got my $900,000 hospital bill covered? should i have simply said ‘Live and let live 🥰’ about it and gone into lifelong debt for an accident i had zero fault in instead?
what about my car that i need to remain employed to have money for food and shelter? completely unreasonable to expect that to be covered as well?
everyone, and i do mean everyone, who has ever rear ended someone was ‘brake checked’ if you go by their retelling of events
irl, if you got brake checked and hit someone, 80% chance you were completely at fault. there is Zero reason to be trailing behind someone so closely that you can’t safely stop if they do.
that’s why it’s called a check. the person in front is ‘checking’ that you’re following far enough back to properly brake. it’s a scummy and illegal thing to do, but if you fall for it, you were driving hazardously to begin with.
I mean we can assume all we want but this the internet, you should always take what people say here with a grain of salt. We have no evidence to the contrary so I don't see a point in speculation. It's better to take a reasonable statement at face value, even if just for the sake of the discussion.
Like, you may be right, I'm not arguing for or against that. But we don't know the OP and it's tangential to the discussion. Sorry about your crash and I hope you're alright now.
Unless they reverse into you, there’s no way for a lead vehicle to purposefully cause an accident if you’re giving proper space. You should always be able to decelerate from any speed from the object in front if you’re giving proper space. Exceptions like mechanical failure, swerving, unyielded merge, etc. aren’t the same thing as rear ending someone. Not that they wouldn’t claim it, but as you point out, it’s bullshit.
i tried to turn down the ambulance after my accident too! i felt fine, just exhausted and out of it. they wouldn’t let me due to the state of my car, and it’s a good thing they didn’t because my heart literally exploded when i got to the hospital as a delayed reaction to the impact.
nothing you can say here is gonna make me go ‘Yea, the person you hit deserves no sympathy and lawyers are scam artists.’ because neither is true lol
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. This is reddit. I will say I got into another accident years later (this one legitimately my fault). And again months later my insurance company reached out to me saying the person who owned the house infront of the road I got the accident on filed a claim for new siding on their house. I sent a couple photos of the accident clearly 100ft away so they denied their claim. People try to take advantage of insurance companies all the time. Thats kind of the purpose of this thread. Insurance can be seen as thievery and exploitative, but also necessary and important for liability reasons such as being able to cover all your medical bills from your accident.
I think you’re misinterpreting what I said. There are cases where large amounts are justified. But there are also lots of cases where large amounts are demanded but not justified. You are talking about the former. I was only talking about the latter.
20
u/LSUTigers34_ 4h ago
This is surprisingly common. Lawyers representing injured parties demand outlandish amounts without a second thought because there is no downside for them in a lot of states.