[WalterBright]

> but has nothing to do to support your claim that, and I quote: "it's never the injured person who is at fault, it's always somebody nearby who has money."

The intended target of the lawsuit was the company that operated the truck that hit me, not the operator. The reason is simple, the truck driver didn't have any money, and the company did.

I hope you carry liability insurance, because if someone trips in your yard and breaks an arm and your house looks expensive, they're going to sue you.

[Kranar]

>The reason is simple, the truck driver didn't have any money, and the company did.

The reason is simple, but has nothing to do with what you think it does. The legal principle is known as vicarious liability which means that employers are vicariously liable for accidents arising as a result of the actions of their employees during the scope and course of employment.

You were advised to sue the company because the company was the only entity who could possibly be liable for the accident you suffered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

[WalterBright]

Exactly what I was talking about:

"The prevailing atmosphere is it's never the injured person who is at fault, it's always somebody nearby who has money."

And the reason for this is money. You can't sue an employee for $200 million, because he doesn't have $200 million. So let's make the employer, who has $200 million, liable, even though the employer was not negligent and did not cause the accident.

This isn't justice.

Thank you, though, I did not know there was a specific term for this. "Vicarious" liability, indeed.