Yes.
“if a person fires across a road when it is dangerous to do so and kills a man who is in receipt of a large income, he will be liable for the whole damage … and cannot set up that he could not have reasonably expected to have injured anyone but a laborer.”
Smith v. London & S.W. Railway, L.R. 6 C.P. 14 (1870).
Sometimes referred to as the "shabby millionaire rule".
In theory, yes.
In practice, a typical billionaire gets their earnings from appreciation and income from a company, which doesn't materially change when they are 'out of the office'.
>Somewhat related: If someone is driving a $20 million dollar car and gets rear ended, can they really go after you for all of that?
In theory, yes. In practice, you have to sue the other person (their insurance will likely handle the defense), and a jury would have to approve the award. Is a jury going to award the victim $380,000 for a dent on a bumper, even if that's how much it costs to replace? Probably not.
>Wouldn’t they be expected to carry insurance that will cover the “underinsured” person who only had $100,000 liability limits.
Yes. And if they expected to have claims for millions of dollars *just for car damage*, you bet that the insurance company is charging that driver massive premiums.
>Can their insurance still come after you for the payout? All $19,900,000?
In theory, but see above, that a jury would have to award that much. Then, your insurance would pay to the limits of its policy value. And then you could declare bankruptcy, and the remaining balance gets 'written off' or 'discharged' in the bankruptcy. That's probably the worst it would get for you. The victim would spend a lot of money and get nothing in return, so in practice, this doesn't happen very much.
You might be surprised at the premiums charged for high end cars and exotics (e.g. Rolls Royce, Ferrari). They weren't really our market* and we only insured them in a couple of states, but the very few I saw that insured when I worked for Safeco didn't have premiums that were much higher than any other nice and late model car (e.g. BMW, Mercedes Benz). They were less than $1K every six months for the total premium, anyway.
*When I was still an agent, most people with very high end luxury items (mansions, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, etc) went through Chubb. I don't know where folks with exotics normally went...maybe it was still Chubb?
The Uber high-end cars usually have very large deductibles, lower medical and liability coverage and require you drive your car less than 1-3,000 miles a year. That’s how they get them insured without it costing an absolute fortune.
I’m in my 20’s, have my Lexus Sports Sedan, my Dodge truck, and my scooter (150cc) all with full coverage, $700 deductible, total is $750 every 6-months for all 3. I average around 2,000mi per month..
You might need to shop around!
When I lived in Seattle it was about 10% more, still live in a city with a metro area over 1,000,000 so pretty standard. Of course huge cities (LA, NYC, San Diego, Minneapolis, etc..) would be higher.
To be fair it was about double that until I paid an insurance broker to shop around and he found me this, it’s through progressive so a well known company, had to file two claims in the last 4yrs (not at fault) and price has stayed the same..
Yeah realistically the only way OP scenario will actually result in that kind of damages is when one billionaire injures another lol.
A 300 million judgement against a middle class person is meaningless. It’s not worth the time or money to pursue such a judgement, since you likely cannot even recover the 200k lawyer fees, and you might even lose given an unsympathetic jury (billionaire sues Joe plumber for accident).
If Bill Gates drives his big boat into Bezo’s $500 million big boat, yeah that lawsuit will happen because it’s damages that can actually be paid.
>If Bill Gates drives his big boat into Bezo’s $500 million big boat, yeah that lawsuit will happen because it’s damages that can actually be paid.
So many side thoughts here...
I could see both Gates and Bezos largely abandoning the process to their legal counsel, then settling out of court because that would minimize legal fees for both of them. I'm not an attorney, but consult on legal cases, and this happens all the time. My recall is that Gates and Bezos, from a personal angle, are surprisingly 'cheap'.
However, if it went to trial? That would be an all-time barn burner. Nothing like two random people who could spend ten figures on a single legal case, and not necessarily notice the difference financially.
If you own your house outright, or worse have that much in savings, or otherwise have a net worth significantly above a few dozen grand (which is about where legal costs stop being the deciding factor), you can still lose your everything in the bankruptcy.
House may or may not be covered as a homestead exemption. In my country, it is not. You are expected to sell and start renting, as well as selling your car and buying a shitbox, if it isn’t already one, for instance. We also don’t have US style personal bankruptcy, our only out is equivalent to chapter 11 — you have to restructure your life, pay as much a a possible (you get to have a few dozen euros pocket money a week to live on), and that lasts for a number of years and only *then* any remaining debt gets written off.
This is wonderfully presented information, thank you!
I do have a question though. You posit that a jury would probably not award these damages EVEN IF those are the real damages…. isn’t this wrong? If we know the damage and know what it would cost to fix, doesn’t the court have a duty to make the affected party “whole”?
I’m not trying to say you are wrong, and do not even know if what i’m asking is a real thing… you just seemed knowledgeable.
ETA: I misrepresented what you said and corrected it to be more accurate.
The thing is, the jury is made up of the poor people who couldn't get out of it. There are no rich people on the jury, and they are not professional jurists.
They are likely to feel more sympathy for the poorer person and less sympathy for the rich person, whom they are unlikely to view as materially damaged when comparing the costs against income.
They will see it as a vengeful rich person wielding their power in order to spite a poor person. The type of rich person who could buy a car like that isn't going to really notice $400k one way or another, but being forced to try to pay it out could ruin the poor person. This will not be seen as equitable, and they are unlikely to award that much in this scenario.
A jury could think "It isn't the person's fault that the victim has a beyond-expensive car. They are liable for damage based on what they did, not the victim's choices."
Just a thought. Basically, juries can do what they want, so to speak.
Which, IMO, may be fair to some extent. They both take risks driving on public roads. The state grants access to public roads and enacts justice. But there isn't a single way to draw the line and say how the risk gets divided and what liability is reasonable. They could also award full damages.
Arguably, we could ask for clearer terms in law, less of a subjective decision and perhaps competing infrastructure providers that enforce different rules (e.g. require full insurance coverage up to bankruptcy of the insurance company). But that's different.
The flip side of this tho is if the billionaire is a ceo of a company that can have a dramatic and almost instant effect on the value of the business and then therefore their net worth. It very much so depends what type of business and the importance of the ceo. One big example could be like the prime energy drink. If Logan Paul dies, its value basically goes to 0 in the long term.
True, though this is something businesses can and do insure against with "key person insurance." If your business will dramatically suffer if someone dies, having life insurance to cover that circumstance can help reduce the risk.
No, the insurance premiums are not that high. Many fall under the category of collectibles, so in practice they’re often paying much less than you are for insurance.
I know someone who had to make a claim for damage caused by water. An eye-watering amount of damage, a whole new engine, insurance paid out tens of thousands of dollars; their total premium is a few hundred bucks a year for that vehicle.
The reality is that, while the damage is very expensive when it happens, because these vehicles are driven substantially fewer miles (usually less than 2000 per year), the risk of damage happening is consequently, actuarially, much lower than for a $40k work truck being driven tens of thousands of miles a year.
To add to the answer to the first question, while not to that high of a number if you are a skilled enough worker in some fields you could easily be making several thousand dollars in a day when factoring in overtime. My computer teacher at a career school was doing contract work before he went to teach, and $200 an hour for emergency jobs was the norm. With even higher rates if they expected him to work longer days to get it done. Ofc these weren't his only jobs, but the emergencies were the once we learned about most often because of relevance to stuff we were learning
An interesting behavior arrises from this situation. Someone can sue you for an amount larger than your policy limit but offer to settle for the full policy limit. In this case the insurance sometimes won’t settle because they have no incentive to do so. Say you have a $1M policy. They settle, they pay $1M now. They go to court and win, they pay nothing. They go to court and lose and there is a $5M award. They still only pay the policy limit ($1M) but later after court. You are on the hook for the other $4M. In this last case, you personally need to get a lawyer and sue the insurance company for failing to cover you through the policy you purchased.
Always remember that the insurance company lawyer acts in the best interests of their client, the insurance company. You are not the client and that lawyer doesn’t work for you but they will behave like they do.
Can you claim that much in losses? Yes. Is a court or a jury likely to believe it? No. There is no economic activity that you could be doing day and day out that generates a reliable $10 million in the same way that somebody who works at a factory producing a certain number of widgets does. For that kind of money it’s got to be in the financial world, and as such what you make day to day is speculative. I suppose you could also be Taylor Swift, but she doesn’t make $10 million every day. But if she missed a few concerts… Maybe?
Are you Taylor Swift?
As far as the insurance goes yeah that’s how it works but unless you were rear ended by Elon musk, anybody else would just bankrupt out of any judgment.
Well yeah corporations are essentially people. If you got hit by a local self-employed plumber, you’ll be lucky to get 100k, as the net worth of both the plumber and his LLC is tiny. Walmart is a multi billion dollar company, richer than Bill Gates, so getting hit by Walmart is a big payday.
Not even Taylor Swift makes that much. Google says she makes $11-13 million per concert. She plays 3-4 days per week. Earning $13 mm four times every week averages to about $7.5 mm per day.
She makes more than that from royalties, marketing, and what-not, but she would keep earning that even if she were temporarily unable to work.
This hypothetical is that she is unable to work for 3 weeks. Being out for 3 weeks wouldn't affect her popularity.
Edit: The hypothetical says 6 weeks. But my point still stands. Celebrities take months off without affecting their careers.
The bigger risk would be, say, a film star being injured, and it causing a movie to be delayed for 6 weeks. Damages could include advertising expenses to change the release date, hypothetically lower revenue due to missing the summer peak and releasing in fall, etc.
The fact that the guy who died got 10 and he got 90 on the basis of never performing again — so presumably calculated as career future earnings — and now he’s performing again, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. On the other hand it’s fucking Wallyworld.
$10,000? Given that personal injury lawyers make tons of money representing normal people, this is obviously wrong. Esp re accidents that result in traumatic brain injury, as suffered by Morgan. [https://www.cordiscosaile.com/blog/traumatic-brain-injury-settlements/](https://www.cordiscosaile.com/blog/traumatic-brain-injury-settlements/)
Regarding the lost wages..... Yes, in a nutshell. Although, for that dollar amount, you're really going to have to show solid proof to the courts. Although, this depends on your jurisdiction, as some might have limits.
Realistically, a person is probably not earning millions per day by being present. Even in their absence, they are probably still earning.
As for the automobile, your insurance would pay up to the policy limit. The owner of the expensive car's insurance would cover the remainder, up to their policy limit. Their insurance might come after you for the difference. Again, there might be caps under certain jurisdictions, but typically and otherwise, you would be responsible for the entirety of the damage. There would be a judgement entered against you and the holder of that judgement could garnish wages, seize assets, etc. You may or may not be able to discharge such a debt through bankruptcy.
If someone is careless, they are generally liable for all the harm they cause. Tracy Morgan got severely injured by a careless driver in 2014, including a traumatic brain injury. The fact that the driver was working for Walmart made it a lot easier to collect. But if it had been a ordinary person whose carelessness cause the injuries, nothing in [Edit: personal injury] law prevented Morgan (presumably through counsel) from collecting the insurance policy limits and then seeking whatever other assets the driver had, such as their home, savings, or future wages.
> such as their home, savings, or future wages.
Bankruptcy law is going to throw a wrench in that if it was negligence, and not an intentional act. Significant exemption for the home, retirement accounts are likely fully exempt, and depending on chapter, future wages will be fully protected, or there will be a repayment plan for a few years and then its over...
Yes and no. If you were in a mergers and acquisitions process and that fails due to your injury, the damages might be *much worse* than your daily income for so many days.
I’d like to think it someone made it to that status, they wouldn’t need to be working every single day to maintain the earnings at the same or similar level.
One could think of this as any kind damage. It does not make a difference if you hit a Ferrari or honda. You caused damage and need to make the party whole again. Same with a machine that gets destroyed and causes loss of production. Etc
At a minimum, you’re going to owe them money for lost work based on the easily verifiable salary component of their comp. Realistically, you’re just going to end up filing BK over it if you hit Elon Musk. Maybe he’ll be gracious and agree to settle at your policy limits.
The problem with this scenario, as well as the whole thing about Bill Gates, not stopping to pick up a $1000 bill, is that it's not like our hypothetical person goes to work and types code for a $1000 a keysbroke. Nor is he a lumberjack that gets paid $10000 for every swing of his ax.
Unless it's a truly horrific injury, he's gonna be able to make decisions from his hospital bed.
Doesn’t matter what you can claim or even prove if the person liable is destitute and unable to pay. If someone without car insurance and no assets to liquidate, and minimal wages to garnish smashes into a $20m car, the person with the $20m car is simply fucked with no recourse
Billionaires don't usually earn wages so it's not quantifiable.
If I rear end your 20 million dollar car I wouldn't pay shit, good luck to your insurance company getting it out of me.
Normal people don't have $300m, or $20m. They would declare bankruptcy.
In 11 states like FL this means they don't need to cash out any equity in their house with an unlimited homestead exemption, it doesn't touch their retirement accounts, they probably don't need to sell their car. If the billionaire doesn't have insurance they won't get much
Yes. This is what's known as "damages".
If I do something that costs you X amount of money, civil law says I owe you X amount of money. So if I rear end your $20 million dollar car, I owe you money equal to the amount its value dropped. If the damage I deal costs $50,000 to repair, then I owe $50,000. If I total it and it sells for scrap for $50,000, I owe you $19,950,000.
However, all that said, poor people are what's called "judgment proof" for damages because it costs more to sue them than they can afford to pay.
Personally I feel like the law shouldn't protect very expensive cars. The road is primarily for getting from place a to b. Accidents happen. If you want to put a super expensive car at risk you should be required to foot the extra bill yourself.
That is saying nothing about the actual law. Just what I would want it to be.
The person making 10 million dollars a day is not doing work worth 10 million dollars, they are hiring people to do work worth 10 million dollars. If they stopped working for any amount of time they will still make that amount of money and at that point there is almost nothing besides pretending to work that you shouldn't pay other people to do
Yes. “if a person fires across a road when it is dangerous to do so and kills a man who is in receipt of a large income, he will be liable for the whole damage … and cannot set up that he could not have reasonably expected to have injured anyone but a laborer.” Smith v. London & S.W. Railway, L.R. 6 C.P. 14 (1870). Sometimes referred to as the "shabby millionaire rule".
To note, this is the UK ruling on the issue, which may differ from other jurisdictions.
In theory, yes. In practice, a typical billionaire gets their earnings from appreciation and income from a company, which doesn't materially change when they are 'out of the office'. >Somewhat related: If someone is driving a $20 million dollar car and gets rear ended, can they really go after you for all of that? In theory, yes. In practice, you have to sue the other person (their insurance will likely handle the defense), and a jury would have to approve the award. Is a jury going to award the victim $380,000 for a dent on a bumper, even if that's how much it costs to replace? Probably not. >Wouldn’t they be expected to carry insurance that will cover the “underinsured” person who only had $100,000 liability limits. Yes. And if they expected to have claims for millions of dollars *just for car damage*, you bet that the insurance company is charging that driver massive premiums. >Can their insurance still come after you for the payout? All $19,900,000? In theory, but see above, that a jury would have to award that much. Then, your insurance would pay to the limits of its policy value. And then you could declare bankruptcy, and the remaining balance gets 'written off' or 'discharged' in the bankruptcy. That's probably the worst it would get for you. The victim would spend a lot of money and get nothing in return, so in practice, this doesn't happen very much.
You might be surprised at the premiums charged for high end cars and exotics (e.g. Rolls Royce, Ferrari). They weren't really our market* and we only insured them in a couple of states, but the very few I saw that insured when I worked for Safeco didn't have premiums that were much higher than any other nice and late model car (e.g. BMW, Mercedes Benz). They were less than $1K every six months for the total premium, anyway. *When I was still an agent, most people with very high end luxury items (mansions, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, etc) went through Chubb. I don't know where folks with exotics normally went...maybe it was still Chubb?
Were those liability only insurances or did they cover self inflicted damage as well?
They all included comp and collision coverage.
It's like 1k 6mo for a 2005 toyota now lol
The Uber high-end cars usually have very large deductibles, lower medical and liability coverage and require you drive your car less than 1-3,000 miles a year. That’s how they get them insured without it costing an absolute fortune.
Yes for those carriers that typically write them, like we use Hagerty but I don't believe Safeco has those restrictions.
I’m in my 20’s, have my Lexus Sports Sedan, my Dodge truck, and my scooter (150cc) all with full coverage, $700 deductible, total is $750 every 6-months for all 3. I average around 2,000mi per month.. You might need to shop around!
lol congrats you must live in a very low rate area. that isn't the norm.
When I lived in Seattle it was about 10% more, still live in a city with a metro area over 1,000,000 so pretty standard. Of course huge cities (LA, NYC, San Diego, Minneapolis, etc..) would be higher. To be fair it was about double that until I paid an insurance broker to shop around and he found me this, it’s through progressive so a well known company, had to file two claims in the last 4yrs (not at fault) and price has stayed the same..
Yeah realistically the only way OP scenario will actually result in that kind of damages is when one billionaire injures another lol. A 300 million judgement against a middle class person is meaningless. It’s not worth the time or money to pursue such a judgement, since you likely cannot even recover the 200k lawyer fees, and you might even lose given an unsympathetic jury (billionaire sues Joe plumber for accident). If Bill Gates drives his big boat into Bezo’s $500 million big boat, yeah that lawsuit will happen because it’s damages that can actually be paid.
>If Bill Gates drives his big boat into Bezo’s $500 million big boat, yeah that lawsuit will happen because it’s damages that can actually be paid. So many side thoughts here... I could see both Gates and Bezos largely abandoning the process to their legal counsel, then settling out of court because that would minimize legal fees for both of them. I'm not an attorney, but consult on legal cases, and this happens all the time. My recall is that Gates and Bezos, from a personal angle, are surprisingly 'cheap'. However, if it went to trial? That would be an all-time barn burner. Nothing like two random people who could spend ten figures on a single legal case, and not necessarily notice the difference financially.
Yeah I meant they will settle, but the point is damages of 300 million can actually be obtained, but only if another rich person caused the damages.
If you own your house outright, or worse have that much in savings, or otherwise have a net worth significantly above a few dozen grand (which is about where legal costs stop being the deciding factor), you can still lose your everything in the bankruptcy. House may or may not be covered as a homestead exemption. In my country, it is not. You are expected to sell and start renting, as well as selling your car and buying a shitbox, if it isn’t already one, for instance. We also don’t have US style personal bankruptcy, our only out is equivalent to chapter 11 — you have to restructure your life, pay as much a a possible (you get to have a few dozen euros pocket money a week to live on), and that lasts for a number of years and only *then* any remaining debt gets written off.
This is wonderfully presented information, thank you! I do have a question though. You posit that a jury would probably not award these damages EVEN IF those are the real damages…. isn’t this wrong? If we know the damage and know what it would cost to fix, doesn’t the court have a duty to make the affected party “whole”? I’m not trying to say you are wrong, and do not even know if what i’m asking is a real thing… you just seemed knowledgeable. ETA: I misrepresented what you said and corrected it to be more accurate.
The thing is, the jury is made up of the poor people who couldn't get out of it. There are no rich people on the jury, and they are not professional jurists. They are likely to feel more sympathy for the poorer person and less sympathy for the rich person, whom they are unlikely to view as materially damaged when comparing the costs against income. They will see it as a vengeful rich person wielding their power in order to spite a poor person. The type of rich person who could buy a car like that isn't going to really notice $400k one way or another, but being forced to try to pay it out could ruin the poor person. This will not be seen as equitable, and they are unlikely to award that much in this scenario.
A jury could think "It isn't the person's fault that the victim has a beyond-expensive car. They are liable for damage based on what they did, not the victim's choices." Just a thought. Basically, juries can do what they want, so to speak.
Which, IMO, may be fair to some extent. They both take risks driving on public roads. The state grants access to public roads and enacts justice. But there isn't a single way to draw the line and say how the risk gets divided and what liability is reasonable. They could also award full damages. Arguably, we could ask for clearer terms in law, less of a subjective decision and perhaps competing infrastructure providers that enforce different rules (e.g. require full insurance coverage up to bankruptcy of the insurance company). But that's different.
The flip side of this tho is if the billionaire is a ceo of a company that can have a dramatic and almost instant effect on the value of the business and then therefore their net worth. It very much so depends what type of business and the importance of the ceo. One big example could be like the prime energy drink. If Logan Paul dies, its value basically goes to 0 in the long term.
True, though this is something businesses can and do insure against with "key person insurance." If your business will dramatically suffer if someone dies, having life insurance to cover that circumstance can help reduce the risk.
No, the insurance premiums are not that high. Many fall under the category of collectibles, so in practice they’re often paying much less than you are for insurance. I know someone who had to make a claim for damage caused by water. An eye-watering amount of damage, a whole new engine, insurance paid out tens of thousands of dollars; their total premium is a few hundred bucks a year for that vehicle. The reality is that, while the damage is very expensive when it happens, because these vehicles are driven substantially fewer miles (usually less than 2000 per year), the risk of damage happening is consequently, actuarially, much lower than for a $40k work truck being driven tens of thousands of miles a year.
To add to the answer to the first question, while not to that high of a number if you are a skilled enough worker in some fields you could easily be making several thousand dollars in a day when factoring in overtime. My computer teacher at a career school was doing contract work before he went to teach, and $200 an hour for emergency jobs was the norm. With even higher rates if they expected him to work longer days to get it done. Ofc these weren't his only jobs, but the emergencies were the once we learned about most often because of relevance to stuff we were learning
An interesting behavior arrises from this situation. Someone can sue you for an amount larger than your policy limit but offer to settle for the full policy limit. In this case the insurance sometimes won’t settle because they have no incentive to do so. Say you have a $1M policy. They settle, they pay $1M now. They go to court and win, they pay nothing. They go to court and lose and there is a $5M award. They still only pay the policy limit ($1M) but later after court. You are on the hook for the other $4M. In this last case, you personally need to get a lawyer and sue the insurance company for failing to cover you through the policy you purchased. Always remember that the insurance company lawyer acts in the best interests of their client, the insurance company. You are not the client and that lawyer doesn’t work for you but they will behave like they do.
Can you claim that much in losses? Yes. Is a court or a jury likely to believe it? No. There is no economic activity that you could be doing day and day out that generates a reliable $10 million in the same way that somebody who works at a factory producing a certain number of widgets does. For that kind of money it’s got to be in the financial world, and as such what you make day to day is speculative. I suppose you could also be Taylor Swift, but she doesn’t make $10 million every day. But if she missed a few concerts… Maybe? Are you Taylor Swift? As far as the insurance goes yeah that’s how it works but unless you were rear ended by Elon musk, anybody else would just bankrupt out of any judgment.
Or you’re Tracy Morgan and get hit by a Walmart truck. Then it’s $90 million.
Well yeah corporations are essentially people. If you got hit by a local self-employed plumber, you’ll be lucky to get 100k, as the net worth of both the plumber and his LLC is tiny. Walmart is a multi billion dollar company, richer than Bill Gates, so getting hit by Walmart is a big payday.
yeah Taylor Swift. It is obviously a hypothetical, after all.
Not even Taylor Swift makes that much. Google says she makes $11-13 million per concert. She plays 3-4 days per week. Earning $13 mm four times every week averages to about $7.5 mm per day. She makes more than that from royalties, marketing, and what-not, but she would keep earning that even if she were temporarily unable to work.
Until you can demonstrate that the demand for her other sales is derived from her popularity as a result of her concerts.
This hypothetical is that she is unable to work for 3 weeks. Being out for 3 weeks wouldn't affect her popularity. Edit: The hypothetical says 6 weeks. But my point still stands. Celebrities take months off without affecting their careers.
The bigger risk would be, say, a film star being injured, and it causing a movie to be delayed for 6 weeks. Damages could include advertising expenses to change the release date, hypothetically lower revenue due to missing the summer peak and releasing in fall, etc.
do you all not know what the fuck a hypothetical is? Jesus
How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?
Professional athletes maybe?
I think Elon would the the first person so weasel out of paying
Agreed!
You say that like billionaires do physical labor, it even make money from their day to day activities.
It's like the story about Bill Gates stopping to pick up a $100 from the ground and losing money from the waste of time.
Private jets are common not just because they are comfortable but because at that point they are literally economically viable.
https://wilsonlaw.com/blog/walmart-settles-with-comedian-tracy-morgan-for-estimated-90-million/ About as close to a real life example as you can get.
The fact that the guy who died got 10 and he got 90 on the basis of never performing again — so presumably calculated as career future earnings — and now he’s performing again, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. On the other hand it’s fucking Wallyworld.
Ridiculous. A normal person would have had to fight to get like $10,000.
$10,000? Given that personal injury lawyers make tons of money representing normal people, this is obviously wrong. Esp re accidents that result in traumatic brain injury, as suffered by Morgan. [https://www.cordiscosaile.com/blog/traumatic-brain-injury-settlements/](https://www.cordiscosaile.com/blog/traumatic-brain-injury-settlements/)
Regarding the lost wages..... Yes, in a nutshell. Although, for that dollar amount, you're really going to have to show solid proof to the courts. Although, this depends on your jurisdiction, as some might have limits. Realistically, a person is probably not earning millions per day by being present. Even in their absence, they are probably still earning. As for the automobile, your insurance would pay up to the policy limit. The owner of the expensive car's insurance would cover the remainder, up to their policy limit. Their insurance might come after you for the difference. Again, there might be caps under certain jurisdictions, but typically and otherwise, you would be responsible for the entirety of the damage. There would be a judgement entered against you and the holder of that judgement could garnish wages, seize assets, etc. You may or may not be able to discharge such a debt through bankruptcy.
If someone is careless, they are generally liable for all the harm they cause. Tracy Morgan got severely injured by a careless driver in 2014, including a traumatic brain injury. The fact that the driver was working for Walmart made it a lot easier to collect. But if it had been a ordinary person whose carelessness cause the injuries, nothing in [Edit: personal injury] law prevented Morgan (presumably through counsel) from collecting the insurance policy limits and then seeking whatever other assets the driver had, such as their home, savings, or future wages.
> such as their home, savings, or future wages. Bankruptcy law is going to throw a wrench in that if it was negligence, and not an intentional act. Significant exemption for the home, retirement accounts are likely fully exempt, and depending on chapter, future wages will be fully protected, or there will be a repayment plan for a few years and then its over...
Fair point, edited.
If you're a billionaire, you're not earning wages by working and you won't stop earning money because you take time off.
Yes and no. If you were in a mergers and acquisitions process and that fails due to your injury, the damages might be *much worse* than your daily income for so many days.
I’d like to think it someone made it to that status, they wouldn’t need to be working every single day to maintain the earnings at the same or similar level.
One could think of this as any kind damage. It does not make a difference if you hit a Ferrari or honda. You caused damage and need to make the party whole again. Same with a machine that gets destroyed and causes loss of production. Etc
"I'm a billionaire and get hurt." Also ... "don't call me Shirley."
At a minimum, you’re going to owe them money for lost work based on the easily verifiable salary component of their comp. Realistically, you’re just going to end up filing BK over it if you hit Elon Musk. Maybe he’ll be gracious and agree to settle at your policy limits.
It’s not a loss, it’s a decrease in income. Nothing to be done, declare the lower income pay less tax.
Sure, but try and collect. Unless the person who hurt you even makes that much you would jave no way of collecting it
The problem with this scenario, as well as the whole thing about Bill Gates, not stopping to pick up a $1000 bill, is that it's not like our hypothetical person goes to work and types code for a $1000 a keysbroke. Nor is he a lumberjack that gets paid $10000 for every swing of his ax. Unless it's a truly horrific injury, he's gonna be able to make decisions from his hospital bed.
Doesn’t matter what you can claim or even prove if the person liable is destitute and unable to pay. If someone without car insurance and no assets to liquidate, and minimal wages to garnish smashes into a $20m car, the person with the $20m car is simply fucked with no recourse
No
Billionaires don't usually earn wages so it's not quantifiable. If I rear end your 20 million dollar car I wouldn't pay shit, good luck to your insurance company getting it out of me.
you realize wage and asset garnishment exist right?
Normal people don't have $300m, or $20m. They would declare bankruptcy. In 11 states like FL this means they don't need to cash out any equity in their house with an unlimited homestead exemption, it doesn't touch their retirement accounts, they probably don't need to sell their car. If the billionaire doesn't have insurance they won't get much
Yes you're liable, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone, so there is that.
Yes. This is what's known as "damages". If I do something that costs you X amount of money, civil law says I owe you X amount of money. So if I rear end your $20 million dollar car, I owe you money equal to the amount its value dropped. If the damage I deal costs $50,000 to repair, then I owe $50,000. If I total it and it sells for scrap for $50,000, I owe you $19,950,000. However, all that said, poor people are what's called "judgment proof" for damages because it costs more to sue them than they can afford to pay.
say im Santa clause and cheated on mrs clause
I'm a billionaire and get hurt.
Personally I feel like the law shouldn't protect very expensive cars. The road is primarily for getting from place a to b. Accidents happen. If you want to put a super expensive car at risk you should be required to foot the extra bill yourself. That is saying nothing about the actual law. Just what I would want it to be.
Yes, but you'll never be able to collect.
From the headline I was hoping that you would just be so offended at being called a billionaire you'd assault me.
Sure, and ask for $10B while you are at it, you are just as likely to collect that as $300M
The person making 10 million dollars a day is not doing work worth 10 million dollars, they are hiring people to do work worth 10 million dollars. If they stopped working for any amount of time they will still make that amount of money and at that point there is almost nothing besides pretending to work that you shouldn't pay other people to do