aircooled wrote:OK, all very nice for the widow and kids and such, BUT ISN'T THIS WHAT LIFE INSURANCE IS FOR!!! (excuse me for yelling)
So if I run a stop sign and slam into your car I shouldn't have to pay because you should have had auto insurance? That doesn't even begin to make sense. One's liability for his torts is independent of whether or not the injury caused is otherwise insured.
aircooled wrote:And what about the wife and kids of the GT driver who now no longer have that money to live off of?
I doubt that they're hurting. I'm sure the GT driver had plenty of that life insurance you were ranting about. I'd also be willing to bet that the $2MM or so from the GT driver was paid by his insurance company and not his estate. (Probably an umbrella policy.)
aircooled wrote:They should pay for the sins of the father? Some peoples kids are more worthy than others?
No, the father's estate should pay for the sins of the father. The father's liability attached before his death, meaning that it was an obligation of the estate when the estate came into being. But, yes, the "victim" of the negligence and his heirs are "more worthy" than the party who was at fault and his heirs.
I tend to agree with you on the 9/11 thing, but that's a totally unrelated issue.
The other thing you seem to be forgetting is that this was a SETTLEMENT, not a jury award. All parties agreed to this. Most likely they agreed because they wanted certainty. Had it gone to trial the jury might have been like most of the people on this thread and given the widow nothing. Alternatively, the jury might have been full of people who would have given the widow tens of millions. If the widow's lawyer tells a good enough story, there would likely be more of the latter than the former.
In any case, this is a lesson for everybody. You're much better off deciding your own fate than letting twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty decide for you.
