This is always true, and a fundamental reason why free societies adopted the notion of open courts: to ensure that all sides of the story are known and innocent people don't suffer based on ifs and maybes.
The Dad appears to have chosen not to sue Google for some reason. The dollar amount quoted in the article is peanuts for what these things normally cost, making it sound more like an arbitration thing.
Typically if you win arbitration or court, the losing party pays the lawyers anyway - so why did he not pursue this?
Typically if you win arbitration or court, the losing party pays the lawyers anyway - so why did he not pursue this?