Replies

We are not talking about a lack of a government regulation here but the negligent maintenence of government owned and operated bridge. If the bridge was privately owned and operated individuals could sue the company that owned the bridge and not just the employee who was negligent in inspecting the bridge. There is a legal principle called Respondeat Superior which allows people to sue businesses, governments, etc for the negligent actions of their employees which are committed in the course of their employment. Also, civil suits are not designed to punish the negligent party but rather to compensate the injured party. So, allowing people who have suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages in medical bills and the like to sue on government inspector would not be nearly adequate to compensate them.

"allowing people who have suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages in medical bills and the like to sue on government inspector would not be nearly adequate to compensate them"

In regards to the Legal principles (established BY lawyers FOR lawyers), the fact remains that an uninsured motorist being the negligent party, for example, leaves no means of recovery (unless specific insurance has been purchased for such an event).

Providing the Respondeat Superior principle allows Lawyers to go after deep pockets, period.

Personal responsibility is absent in the Law today, as the old "RPM" standard (reasonably prudent man) has been relegated to the ash heap of history, to provide access to deep pockets and more "qualified victims" to be represented, lacking any common sense on the part of the individual. From the hot coffee in the lap schtick, to the lifestyle choices absolutions, someone ALWAYS sues to gain the Lawyers' access to a gold mine....

The remainder of the scam is to sue for, let's say, $10M, find the plaintiff 50% negligent (their own stupidity), and STILL the plaintiff collects $5M of the settlement.....

I don't condone KNOWINGLY putting lives at risk with impunity, but an INDIVIDUAL who made the decision should be the one who is penalized, NOT just whatever deep-pockets can be found to benefit someone's lawyer.

Lawyers' fees should be limited to actual cost, NOT windfall percentages that encourage the sky's-the-limit lotto winnings....

Trying to argue with the ignorant who gladly swallow the tales spun by the insurance industry is pointless. I was going to respond to them, but I read your well written, well reasoned responses first, so anything I could add would be redundant.

A former defense attorney on a thread like this concluded that it is jealousy and covetousness that leads people to resent that people are compensated for the harms they suffered. I agree.