Civil forfiture falls under 8th amendment

[TheRedComet]

Technically the automobile owner’s insurance is supposed to cover the medical cost of the victim.

But as everyone here knows there are hundreds of thousands of people driving without insurance. And let’s say the victim’s health insurance won’t foot the entire bill, leaving them to pay 20,000 dollars for the remainder of the cost.

So what do you do in that situation? The driver may have not had criminal intentions to hit the victim but perhaps he dozed off, or perhaps he took his eyes off the road for a second too long.

How is that fair to the victim who is now stuck paying an enormous bill that they do not have the means to pay for.

[vaard]

@Rurudyne

Frankly, accidents happen and people get hurt. Without demonstrating intent (which is where the criminal aspect comes into it) in such cases there should be no civil liability. The world might not be the best place if we roped in these lawsuits, but it would be a less litigious place.

It’s kinda like this recent Nike case: just because a flaw on one shoe (for a design that is probably sound and normally very reliable) that causes a problem that doesn’t mean the company should be held liable … not like if they knew there was a problem but made the shoe design anyway. No one intended to do wrong. Sometimes it should just suck to be someone.

No offense… and i say this sincerely and not one bit of snark or intended insult…

That post has to one of the most insanely awful things i ever read…

You are saying all people affected by the cancer from asbestos should not receive compensation and the company should be able to keep all the profits that caused those deaths…

[FloridaYankee]

@Bomberfox

This is the best news ive heard in a while.

Hell yeah it is, it’s awesome.

[FloridaYankee]

@Rurudyne

Frankly, accidents happen and people get hurt. Without demonstrating intent (which is where the criminal aspect comes into it) in such cases there should be no civil liability. The world might not be the best place if we roped in these lawsuits, but it would be a less litigious place.

It’s kinda like this recent Nike case: just because a flaw on one shoe (for a design that is probably sound and normally very reliable) that causes a problem that doesn’t mean the company should be held liable … not like if they knew there was a problem but made the shoe design anyway. No one intended to do wrong. Sometimes it should just suck to be someone.

You are forgetting negligence. Intent is important of course but there is often more to the story.

[Rurudyne]

That would depend: were they exposed to asbestos installed after the link with cancer was demonstrated or before?

(Also, you’re arguing hard cases there)

[Rurudyne]

Negligence that relates to things like published standards in use at the time, sure, but asserted negligence that related to how we do things today isn’t really negligence.

In any event, I’d rather a less litigious world. Even if that means people sometimes just got screwed by life. I don’t care if people with progressive sensibilities think that’s horrible … because I think modern progressivism is horrible.