Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
Who suggested there would be no way of compensating others? The negligent party would be sued. If he were self-insured he would pay the damages in full or effect a settlement. There is only a problem if he can't cover the the amount of the damages (in which case he isn't self-insured).
|
It's already been note in this thread that you cannot be compensated if the liable party has no resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
A typical auto insurance policy for liability has protection against "uninsured drivers". If I chose not to buy insurance against "uninsured motorists" I would be out of luck - but I'd have no one but myself to blame for that.
I'm getting the impression that some here are clueless about what negligence and legal liability is. Your remark about my being "self-centered' is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of how the law works.
The whole point of the discussion about mandatory insurance is that you do not get to choose whether to buy it or not; you can't opt out even if you can afford to cover any damages caused by your own negligence. The government (in virtually all states) forces you to pay for insurance for your own negligence, even if you are never negligent. Where does that money you are paying go? It goes toward insurance company profits and subsidizing the accidents of those who are negligent.
|
Your impression is wrong. You seem to think that one is responsible for only one's self, and that's why I said you were being self-centered. We are all part of society as our actions affect others around us.
Because we allow those of limited means to drive, we require mandatory insurance coverage. I'm sure if you were hit and injured to the point where you couldn't work your job anymore, you'd be right on the mandatory bandwagon. Seen it too many times.