Social Benefit of Limiting or Transferring Civil Liability

[Simon_Jester]

OK, that works for me. So breaking the defendant would, in your proposed system, be reserved for cases where the defendant shows serious negligence- either failing to buy enough insurance to avoid an "ordinary" accident, or in being stupid enough to cause an extraordinary one?

[Kanastrous]

Problem with that is, what about the victim? It's not about whether or not the perpetrator is punished, it's about whether the perpetrator or the victim pays the costs of the damage done. I suggest that no matter how much insurance the perpetrator carries, they should be responsible for making their victim whole if the insurance is insufficient, period, even if that means they're reduced to poverty: if *they* created the problem, why should *anyone* else suffer the loss?

[Stuart]

Problem with that is, what about the victim? It's not about whether or not the perpetrator is punished, it's about whether the perpetrator or the victim pays the costs of the damage done. I suggest that no matter how much insurance the perpetrator carries, they should be responsible for making their victim whole if the insurance is insufficient, period, even if that means they're reduced to poverty: if *they* created the problem, why should *anyone* else suffer the loss?

Because things are not black and white; sometimes they're an indeterminate shade of gray. Sometimes shit happens; somebody can do everything right and it can all still go to hell. So, the back-up fund I propose is a safety system to cope with those events and situations. For those absolutely to blame and those that don't carry the mandated insurance, no problem. But the surcharge fund is there as a backup in case its needed. If it isn't, the interest from it can be distributed as a dividend to the insurance holders who are in good standing. That would also serve to reward those who take on extra insurance to cover a higher level of risk (if the legal limit is 95 percent and somebody insures themselves to 99.5 percent, then he gets a MUCH bigger dividend than the 95 percent holder. The surcharge would, of course, be a flat rate).

[ehenders]

This all makes massive amounts of sense from the standpoint of right and wrong, but what of affordability of the insurance? In the US at least (and I'm sure most first and second world countries) Liability Insurance is legally mandated for operating a car. It can be very difficult to get by in some cities here without a car, but insurance can be expensive, especially if you are college-aged. It is well-documented that the costs go down significantly at about 24 or 25 (depending on the insurance company).

Meanwhile, I've been found guilty of driving without insurance myself. Twice. Neither time was I doing so because I don't care about the other guy, but simply because I missed a payment that I couldn't afford and then was pulled over for a busted tail light. The tail light was a case of can't afford to fix it, can't afford not to fix it, it turned out.

Now, I would have loved to go carless, but my job was a pizza delivery driver at the time. It was a craphole economy and good money, so I wasn't about to up and quit when I missed a payment because my car was no good. Not to mention where I was living frequently sees temperatures around -40 in the wintertime and the bus system up and stopped at 10PM.

I hope you can all forgive me for committing the evil crime of not being able to make ends meet. I know, truly heinous. And I don't empathize with the chimps owner any - adequate Liability Insurance for luxury possessions like exotic animals or weapons is a no-brainer. However, I really don't think that I should have been made to live under a bridge simply because I prioritized my rent payment before my insurance payment. THAT is where the discretion of the courts comes in, and thats why some things can't be touched by the victims in liability cases.

TRH

[Kanastrous]

THAT is where the discretion of the courts comes in, and thats why some things can't be touched by the victims in liability cases.

What I think you're missing from the OP - which a number of people seem to have missed - is that the question posed centered on a situation where one or the other party - perpetrator or victim - is going to go broke paying for the harm caused by the perpetrator.

Since it's a given - in that question - that someone is going to go broke, the question was why should the victim be the one to do it? Being twice victimized: once by the perpetrator, then again by a society that tells them that the perp is protected, that the perp's property, vehicle, whatever, is sacrosanct while it's just ducky that the victim goes broke paying for the damage that the perp caused.

So, given that particular set of circumstances, why should "you" - if you were the perpetrator - not be the one to live under the bridge? Why should you go your merry way, while your victim has to?

[Werrf]

I don't think it's really being missed, people are just taking a third option, because both of the provided options suck.

Also, the original question - why should the victim go bankrupt instead of the perpetrator - has a pretty self-evident and easy answer - they shouldn't. So there, thread over - we need to find something else to talk about, like what we think should be done.

[Kanastrous]

Well...that defeats the purpose of having asked the question to begin with, because a lot of people are confronted with the situation in the OP and don't get to create a third option at will...

Since in fact the law in many states does require that the victim be the one ruined, what I asked for in the OP was a description of the moral underpinning that makes such a demand.

Since no one has actually described one, maybe that means that there isn't one. Which makes me wonder why the law is written that way, if there is no moral underpinning to double-victimizing victims while the perps get to walk...

[phongn]

This all makes massive amounts of sense from the standpoint of right and wrong, but what of affordability of the insurance? In the US at least (and I'm sure most first and second world countries) Liability Insurance is legally mandated for operating a car. It can be very difficult to get by in some cities here without a car, but insurance can be expensive, especially if you are college-aged. It is well-documented that the costs go down significantly at about 24 or 25 (depending on the insurance company).

Well-documented because collision rates are high for young drivers.

I hope you can all forgive me for committing the evil crime of not being able to make ends meet. I know, truly heinous. And I don't empathize with the chimps owner any - adequate Liability Insurance for luxury possessions like exotic animals or weapons is a no-brainer. However, I really don't think that I should have been made to live under a bridge simply because I prioritized my rent payment before my insurance payment. THAT is where the discretion of the courts comes in, and thats why some things can't be touched by the victims in liability cases.

Yes, but the argument is not if you lack insurance but if you harm someone while lacking it.

[Uraniun235]

Sometimes a person causes loss or injury to another person, to such a degree that the costs are ruinous. Now, a number of states have laws in place that protect the responsible party's assets, for example, in some states no matter how much harm you are responsible for causing someone else, you can't lose your house, and/or your car, and/or your pension.

Well, I don't see the moral righteousness of this policy. If you do someone else sufficient harm, someone is going to be ruined by the costs of treating their injuries, and their long-term care. In order to gain access to certain support programs, one has to basically give up everything and put one's self into poverty, becoming an effective ward of the state for the purpose of getting the required care - all while the party who caused the injuries goes their merry way, house and car titles in hand, pension checks coming in each month, no further worries.

Why is it considered more desirable for the injured party to go broke and homeless as a result of the responsible party's actions, than for the responsible party to go broke and homeless? Since someone is going broke/homeless either way, I don't see the underpinning argument in favor of making the victim lose everything, rather than the person who victimized them, losing what they have.

Maybe someone with some background in social policy, moral philosophy, or some such discipline can illuminate me, on this one.

Probably the biggest issue would be a lack of granularity in the law. Protecting people from ruinous civil judgments is not wholly without merit; let's say some poor guy's kid is out riding his bike, and crashes into some other rich guy's superexpensive sports car, and the rich guy goes after the kid's family for the exorbitant amount of money the shop is charging to repair the body and paint. There's no way you can convince me that that kid's family should lose their home because a child had an error in judgment while riding a bike.

What would be needed would be conditional modifiers that say "if the harm caused impacts the plaintiff's ability to earn a living or substantially detracts from the quality of their life...", or something along those lines.


I'm still curious about the family angle, though. It could create legal complications.

If I'm married to someone, and I fuck up and cripple another dude, and the court says my pay gets garnished for life in order to help pay for the victim's care, does her pay get garnished too? If so, what happens if she divorces me; does the judgment still apply to her, even though she had no part in causing the incident?

[Kanastrous]

It varies from state to state. In some states any community property is automatically protected; if you own a house in common with your wife and your wife stupidly fucks someone else up, the house is protected via that joint ownership. In some states the community property is attachable; if one spouse is liable, then both are. I guess that in some places it may be severable, but I'd hate to be responsible for untangling exactly who owns how much of what, in a marriage or domestic partnership (I would clearly make a lousy divorce attorney...)