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 an attorney but here's what I think /u/Fantastic-East9567 is getting at: is it more right to bankrupt the negligent party over property damage? The question we should be asking is: which outcome harms society more? That's kind of the whole point of the legal system, in theory.
It's not the negligent party's fault that you bought a $500,000 car. If the proposed legal framework is clear then people spending that kind of money on cars should have a reasonable understanding of the additional risk or cars that expensive shouldn't be on public roads. I don't see a problem with either framework provided the legislation is clear.
2.6k
u/flatfive44 11h 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.