'nuff said.



Well, not exactly "nuff said."

First, entities with money (or insurance) get sued if they are at
fault and have money, not just because they have money. Again, show
me any law that says that a person with money is liable because of
that fact and that fault is not required. Naturally, there are few
civil actions against persons without money because no matter how
extreme or deliberate their wrongdoing or how serious the damage to
the plaintiff, nothing is to be gained by suing them, The civil
justice system is meant to compensate an injured person. If the
defendant doesn't have the means to compensate the plaintiff, why
should they be sued? Do you advocate just suing for the hell of it?
You should be ashamed; it would waste the resources of government;
waste taxpayers' money; consume the time of jurors; and divert the
otherwise productive time of witnesses and other people.

Secondly, many people without money get sued. Your government does
it allthe time. Many people without money get sued by collection
agencies frequently. In the most recent legal paper in my town (and
most of the time), there were more of those types of cases than all
the others. I think most of those suits are a waste of time for the
reasons explained above, but as for "nuff said," you are wrong in your
fallacious premise that people without money don't get sued.

If you want an example of a legislative attempt to impose financial
responsibility for injuring others, consider the requirement in most,
if not all, states requiring mandatory liability insurance for car
owners and drivers. They recognize that some steps should be taken to
require pepole to be responsible (i.e. though insurance) to compensate
those they injure. In my state, if a person injures another, and
didn't have insurance or the means to pay the damage, they can lose
their license and be prevented from registering a vehicle until they
pay the damage.