Just as fair as it is that an innocent person may be struck by lightning and have no one at all to sue.

1) UHaul has built into its prices the cost of paying out for cases like this
2) UHaul’s prices are the same everywhere
3) Therefore, when I rent a UHaul in Illinois I’m paying more than I would otherwise because of lawsuits filed in Washington.

So this unjust settlement is costing me money, and I’m not even a defendant.

That being said, I’m not sure that this is a good thing or the best way to handle the situation. But from an economic analysis, the renter is paying for the coverage.

Oh if they happen t find the attorney involved to be …. well not so upstanding… then he can pay the judgment.

See if those actually putting their name to the filings of some suits could be held personally accountable for such, I’d bet we would see less of them, valid or not, sad, but true.

Some people make themselves feel better about these inequities by pointing out that the nameless “insurance company” will actually have to foot the bill. In this case, U-Haul is the “insurance company”. The are self insured.

Actually they do have a direct interest…
If they don’t find for the maximum amount of damages they set themselves up for receiving less damages next time they sue someone.

The entire jury system in liability cases is fundamentally broken, seriously skewed in favour of the claimant because it’s in the jury members interest to find for maximum liability against the most wealthy parties.

A fair system would ensure that noone influencing the finding has any interest in the outcome (directly or indirectly) except to see justice done to the letter of the law. That’s clearly not the case under the US legal system.

Ubu, it’s never fair for an innocent person to receive less than full compensation for her injuries, but not at the expense of others in excess of their liability.

And that an insurance company may pay the judgment is not really relevant here. Insurance companies can’t print money, so whatever is paid comes from policyholders, yes–I’ll say it, like a “tort tax.”

Good comment, Nevins, on that, “You are proposing that payment should come from those with means, because they have the means, not because they have the guilt.” That’s my point better than I said it.

JB, (hey, those are my initials!) Juries often select those defendants they suspect as capable of paying judgments, especially in the cases of sympathetic plaintiffs. We hope and expect that juries follow the “jury instructions” given to them by the court and weigh the facts and follow the law. They don’t always get it right, but it’s a good system.

Tom, I could have been clearer on this point. Washington has pure comparative negligence. So, simply speaking, if you are 1% at fault you can recover 99% of your damages from an at-fault party, and if you are 99% at fault you can collect only 1%, and anywhere in-between.

But, under the joint & several statute, if and only if you are 0% at fault you can collect your entire damages from any defendant 1% or more at fault–whoever is most convenient for you.

And, retaining common law joint & several liability may be usual, but it’s certainly unjust for the reasons outlined above and elsewhere.

Your point on the BAC is still quite relevant. Although that evidence is disallowed to the jury, it is still admitted she drank that night which may provide some basis for 1% liability and defeat any basis for collecting her entire judgment from the defendant of her choice.