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....
Not after the lawyers are done feeding, they won't. What are contigency rates now, anyway? 40%? More?
It is quite obvious that you are ignorant of the legal system and how it really works.
In regards to the Legal principles (established BY lawyers FOR lawyers),
You do realize that the defense has lawyers too, right?
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).
what does an uninsured motorist (logically) have to do with a negligent act by the state government? The potential for getting injured by an uninsured motorist is a foreseeable occurance, hence the ability to provide yourself with insurance against it. I don't recall ever having an insurance agent ask me if i wanted additional coverage against a bridge falling on me.
Providing the Respondeat Superior principle allows Lawyers to go after deep pockets, period.
Wrong. It means that employers are responsible for acts of their employees in the course of their employment. Should a trucking company be not liable for sending a driver out on the highway when they know he drinks a 6-pack before noon, just as a warmup? That is what you are saying.
I could go on, but it is pointless. You and the others have based your beliefs on ignorant assertions that benefit the insurance industry, and no matter how many facts and logical explanations are put before you, you won't see it because you don't want to.
You and others like you talk about the "coffee in the lap" case, but are ignorant of the real facts of the case, and what really happened. What you bought hook, line, and sinker is the message the insurance industry wanted you to believe.