Why do think it is necessary to sue anyone? Just because the law says you can, doesn’t mean you have to.
Then don’t. But why do you think less of those that do?
If I were killed in a traffic accident like this one, I would go all poltergeist on anyone in my family who tried to get rich off of it.
That includes you, monstro.
This one?
So, a plaintiff’s financial status should determine the amount they can sue for?
Because when the circumstances do not indicate gross negligence or malicious intent, it smacks of opportunism and greed. At any amount.
Nope. But I think a fair amount would be funeral expenses and reasonable time off work for grieving. Maybe the cost of counseling, though those Compassionate Friends groups are free as far as I know.
Oh. so one could sue for $50M if there was gross negligence or malicious intent?
How would that make one less opportunistic or greedy?
I didn’t say that. A $50 million lawsuit against an individual is excessive even in the case of gross negligence or malice. The only reason the amount is this high is because of the defendant’s celebrity status.
Because a punitive award is justified by the circumstances. In the absence of gross negligence or malice, it is just vengeance.
What I mean is that you seem to be implying that a poor person should not be able to sue for the same amount that a middle class person could because that amount would financially elevate the poor one to a greater proportion than it would a middle class one.
Why should they assume you are using your own special definition when you don’t tell them that?
Why would you expect them to?
We’re going in circles here. if $50M is excessive, what amount isn’t? If you only place a dollar value on a life, why isn’t one hundred dollars vengeance?
I don’t place a dollar value on life. I place a dollar value on gross negligence and malice. In their absence, a dollar value is unjustified.
For one thing, I wasn’t using my own special definition. They assumed I was anyway.
The polite – and logical – thing to do is to ask for further information rather than going on the attack based on a bunch of assumptions. I honestly expected more from this board.
They can sue for whatever they want to sue for. I don’t think people should be compensated extravagantly for the non-malicious loss of a loved one. The insurance company will provide compensation based on the amount the policy provides for. If that is an insufficient amount, the court will most likely base the award of a separate suit on the dead person’s earning ability, with pain and suffering tossed in. If that amount will ruin the defendant financially, then I believe the Tough Shit Clause should kick in. Life ain’t a bed of roses, bad things happen to good people, etc.
This is an excellent refutation. Of nothing that I’ve said.
I don’t disagree with any of this, so I’ll just be brief and endorse your post.
Actually, we seem to be on the same page here. A court or settlement is going to determine what the plaintiff ultimately gets.
Fuck you, bitch. I’m getting mines!
Sal, as a Land Rover owner I feel I need to take issue with your post on a couple of fronts. Firstly, and for some reason I couldn’t open the link in the OP, so I’m going with the synopsis, Land Rover has more than one model. There are Freelanders, Defenders (3 main types, 90, 110, 130), and Discoveries. All of them have different weights. Depending on the model, the Freelander weighs anything between 3600 and 4500 lbs, and in fact has a very low ground clearance for a 4x4. I think it is just a tad unfair to automatically assume that because the report says it is a Land Rover, it therefore weighs 6700 pounds, has a high clearance, and that it automatically weighs more than the Honda. Do we know which model Land Rover, and for that matter, which model Honda? Maybe the Honda in this case actually weighs more than the Land Rover?
Secondly, I simply cannot buy into the notion that my choice of vehicle somehow equates to a higher or lower accountability when two vehicles meet by accident. Maybe it’s because we have a different legal system here, but it just doesn’t fly with me. Our system recognises that all road users have equal rights to the road, but also equal responsibilities. I have no knowledge of any case in SA where the heavier vehicle was held more accountable merely because of its weight.
And then, as another poster pointed out, a heavier vehicle does not necessarily equate to less stopping power. Hence I’m struggling to see your point regarding weight advantage/disadvantage.
Thirdly, and this relates to your subsequent post about planetary issues, my Landy’s consumption is 12 litres per 100 town driving. This matches my first car I ever owned, a very light and very small 1978 Mazda 323.
Sorry to pounce on you, mate, but you touched a bit of a nerve there.
But the point is it’s not based on love; it’s based on earning power. Therefore, an award for a low wage earner would be less than that of a high wage earner. But if a low wage earner kills a high wage earner, the Tough Shit Clause would kick in.
Right. You never provided a definition. That’s what I said. You have your own personal definition of what it means to “drive over the speed limit,” criticized people who do drive over the speed limit, but did not define what YOU think that means. That’s all. Now I understand your definition, and your statement makes a lot more sense.