And as I have said many times, that is a completely unacceptable, insufficient reason. After all, when they decided to go to court they did not seek an apology---they sought monetary damages.
Whatever you think doesn't matter actually.
Oh, yes it does. What we are talking about here is the responsibility of citizens not to clog our court system with unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits. The Youngs wouldn't know the meaning of that.
The Youngs won in court so the law was on their side.
Not exactly. The judge refused to give them all they asked for---he only awarded them the compensation for the medical bills. But the teenagers had already offered that. So in effect, they wasted the court's time. Had they not gone to court, and accepted the offer from the teenagers, the result would have been EXACTLY the same, except that perhaps they wouldn't have this media circus, the harassment from strangers, and they wouldn't have to pay an attorney.
The reason they won probably had little to do with the apology one way or the other.
Correct, it had nothing to do with the apology. It had everything to do with whether or not the teens should be liable for the damage caused. Hence the lack of a verbal apology was not reasonable jusitification to go to court.
The girls caused the anxiety attack and they were made to pay for listening to their poorly chosen lawyer.
No, they were not "made" to pay anything more than what they had already offered to pay. The court didn't MAKE them do any more than that---except to pay the court costs. Oh, and she was not "awarded" a verbal apology, either.
So you tell me: in what way does that constitute a victory for the Youngs?
Some people who think they are never wrong always have to redirect EVERY comment like you just have.