What is the smallest offense that people should be sued over?

[FourKing Hell]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if you realize this, but that honest man has insurance for his business for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that reason sure as hell shouldn't be paying off these claims. While it is indeed prudent to pool money to cushion the financial blow, it should not come from store owners insuring against this crap. Even if the hypothetical guy is 0% liable and couldn't have prevented the accident, why should this make somebody else liable? That is the attitude I have a problem with.

His losses should be compensated by health insurance, whether he pays for that himself, his country has free health care, whatever. People focus too much on putting the blame on somebody these days.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if you realize this, but that honest man has insurance for his business for a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that reason sure as hell shouldn't be paying off these claims. While it is indeed prudent to pool money to cushion the financial blow, it should not come from store owners insuring against this crap. Even if the hypothetical guy is 0% liable and couldn't have prevented the accident, why should this make somebody else liable? That is the attitude I have a problem with.

His losses should be compensated by health insurance, whether he pays for that himself, his country has free health care, whatever. People focus too much on putting the blame on somebody these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

no actually insurance is held exactly for this reason(among others of course). to cover potential liabilities of the owner that he or she can't manage alone.


" why should this make somebody else liable? " I never implied one person not being liable makes another liable. i have no idea where you get this from, it makes absolutely no sense. so i guess i agree with you there.


furthermore keep in mind that not everyone has health insurance. and that saying health insurance should be liable you are just shifting liability... of course there is nothing wrong with it. especially if you think its more fair or whatever. but at the end of the day there is no free lunch and they guy with the broken neck has taken a huge loss.

EDIT: also this guy lost a lot more than just his health, he probably lost a big chunk or all of his income, as well as his quality of life. and health insurance probably shouldn't be the place to go to compensate for those losses. there is disability insurance for lost wages, but even fewer people have that in this country.

if someone other than the guy with the broken neck was liable. that person should compensate this guy relative to the injury and how liable he or she was. of course determining liability is the very tricky part