Quote:
|
Originally Posted by squeeeb
it seems to be the new "american way." something bad is happening to me, therefore, someone owes me money....
he was always handed a drink, he didn't HAVE to drink them. i and many people i know have been in bars and didn't drink alchochol. maybe i missed somehting, but how does the towing truck and the stalled car play into any of it? hancock hit the stalled car and tow truck. it's not like the tow truck and car were sitting there hoping to get hit by a drunk driver. to think someone is guilty for merely "being there" is incredible.
|
But what if Hancock had been completely sober? They (the car and tow truck drivers) weren't merely being there - they were there. They were impeding the flow of traffic. They were in an active lane. Yes, they were "just" there, but the important thing is exactly where "there" is. If they were off on the shoulder, your argument holds a lot more water, but as it stands, they were in a place that could and did cause an accident. Did Hancock contribute - oh God yes, but he wasn't the only contributor.
Not to get off on a diatribe here, but the American system actually works fairly efficiently and rights a lot of wrongs. There are times where courts tap the deep pockets of big companies (really their insurance companies) to make sure that injured people are not going to become a drain on society. The court sees someone who was killed or hurt and finds those who have the resources to pay, even if their actual liability is minimal. The alternative is to leave the injured destitute. I perfer the current method.