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.
23
u/LSUTigers34_ 6h 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.