Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let Consumers Sue Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#231

Post by jopsen »

jacquesm wrote: post #123
odabaxok wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel that consumer rights are generally stronger in the EU than in North America I agree with this, I feel the same. However, it seems to me, that if there is a customer related problem already in place, US will find it and react to it faster. To put an example here, all of the major automotive recalls of the last few years were exposed in the US, while Europe reacted to them with a delay (Volkswagen diesels, Tak…

The VW scandal is a bad example. They broke the law, but consumers only lost value in their cars indirectly (and there were some health effects). Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler. A part of me is really happy that the US brought this to light and made VW pay for their transgression, a part of me fe…

VW scandal wasn't so bad because all consumers knew the mileage numbers was unrealistic.

People know VW was promsing something they couldn't hold.

That certainly doesn't make it right. But it is a mitigating factor. That said, I'm super happy it got exposed so that mileage numbers might actually have meaning in the future.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#232

Post by vturner »

stult wrote: post #225
jerrac wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say "Conservatives tend to reject both approaches as an impingement on business freedoms."? I really do want to know what you are basing your beliefs about Conservatives on. I, and the circles I've been in, would not necessarily do that. We would reject regulations that are too strict (which, lately, most environmental regulations have been). We would also reject the Federal Government being involved, sinc…

Well this is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said our political discourse is "childishly uninformed." You claim that environmental remedies should be worked out between factories and local residents. Disregarding the absurd implication that factories are the only or even the most important polluters, the only mechanism by which local residents can directly negotiate enforceable restrictions on factories is li…

Interesting response with lots of "You ..." in there. I'm also a conservative minded person (leaning more libertarian) and thought I would add a response.

First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History]

Second, the commentor clearly indicated that states and localities can be involved in regulation but only when local discourse fails. The commentor only stated that "most" environmental regulations are too strict, but that doesn't mean we should not have sane ones driven by local (not nationwide cultural ebb and flow demands of the day)!

Third, apparently you are not very familiar with environmental regulation. Environmental regulations need not cross state boundaries (we can regulate water and air from entities in in our own states). Unfortunately, we do not have that capability to balance the locality's needs and the environment's. The current system leaves little if any recourse for citizens or small businesses against government. Who do we go against? Oh yes, the EPA which is nearly or more difficult to reason with than a court system.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#233

Post by khedoros1 »

jacquesm wrote: post #194
squeaky-clean wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. From the very top of your Google link: > There is no guarantee that the person who caused the accident will even have insurance. You may have to file a personal injury laws…

> You sue when the other person is uninsured. That's why insurance matters. Insurance is legally required to drive in most states (New York is one of them). Well, or you don't. See, that was the point. Being insured or not is not relevant, it is relevant for the other party but seeing an accident as an avenue to a payday is a fairly uniquely American thing. So whether you claim from the other party or from the insura…

> Insurance is mandatory, hence the 'filling out a form'.

What's the result if the other driver is driving without insurance, despite it being mandatory? Or if they don't carry enough insurance to cover the costs of the accident (or is this not a problem)?

There are a total of 3 states that don't require insurance, and there are another 2 that have laughably low minimum coverage requirements. It's still relatively common for people to drive illegally (e.g. borrowing a family member's car).

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#234

Post by vacri »

sageikosa wrote: post #217
aseipp wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Snowflake society doesn't like calculating the economic (market) value of risk to life or limb, but the truth is that without reasonable tort the economic impact will still be born, but socialized by non-risk takers subsidizing expanding bureaucracies. Sounds like you should move to Somalia, land of the free market -- it's quite untouched and unregulated by nanny bureaucracies, in fact. Lots of opportunities to mak…

Thanks for playing

However it's true - anti-regulation types don't care about regulation in their favour. For example, look at patents or copyright.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#235

Post by squeaky-clean »

jacquesm wrote: post #194
squeaky-clean wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. From the very top of your Google link: > There is no guarantee that the person who caused the accident will even have insurance. You may have to file a personal injury laws…

> You sue when the other person is uninsured. That's why insurance matters. Insurance is legally required to drive in most states (New York is one of them). Well, or you don't. See, that was the point. Being insured or not is not relevant, it is relevant for the other party but seeing an accident as an avenue to a payday is a fairly uniquely American thing. So whether you claim from the other party or from the insura…

> Well, or you don't. See, that was the point.

No. You do. Otherwise you're not reporting the accident and eating the repair bills yourself. Unless you live in a no-fault state, in which case your insurance only ever applies to yourself and damages from other drivers to you are covered by your own insurance.

Otherwise, whomever is at fault (and their insurance by proxy) are responsible for damages caused to the other driver and their vehicle.

You can choose to not press charges, but that only means you're going to pay for the full repair bill out of pocket.

You also can't take money that doesn't exist. So someone without insurance likely doesn't have a huge savings to pull from. Which is why underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage is available.

> Insurance is mandatory, hence the 'filling out a form'.

Insurance is mandatory in the states too. But that doesn't mean people never drive uninsured, I'm sure it's the same in the EU. What happens if an uninsured driver hits you? You pay the bill entirely out of your own pocket with no repercussions for the uninsured?

Again, from one of the top results of your Google search earlier

> There is no guarantee that an insurance adjuster will pay out on your claim. There is no guarantee that the person who caused the accident will even have insurance. You may have to file a personal injury lawsuit to facilitate collection of your damages.

> In no-fault states, pursuing a lawsuit for a whiplash injury can be difficult due to threshold injury and damage requirements. In states not governed by no-fault law, you may be able to file a lawsuit as a matter of right. Should

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#236

Post by cnorthwood »

jacquesm wrote: post #194
squeaky-clean wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. From the very top of your Google link: > There is no guarantee that the person who caused the accident will even have insurance. You may have to file a personal injury laws…

> You sue when the other person is uninsured. That's why insurance matters. Insurance is legally required to drive in most states (New York is one of them). Well, or you don't. See, that was the point. Being insured or not is not relevant, it is relevant for the other party but seeing an accident as an avenue to a payday is a fairly uniquely American thing. So whether you claim from the other party or from the insura…

> Insurance is mandatory in the states too. But that doesn't mean people never drive uninsured, I'm sure it's the same in the EU. What happens if an uninsured driver hits you? You pay the bill entirely out of your own pocket with no repercussions for the uninsured?

It depends on the level of insurance you have. If you have "third-party" insurance (the legal minimum), then that doesn't cover any of your costs. Comprehensive insurance is more common which will cover all your costs (excluding an excess), however the insurance company will treat it as a "at fault" claim for you and you may lose any no claims bonus you have. The person who caused the accident will then generally get prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#237

Post by sqeaky »

jerrac wrote: post #216
rayiner wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you deal with a negative externality, such as a factory dumping pollutants into the water? Liberals would say: strictly regulate the factory so it limits pollution to an acceptable level. (Statist) libertarians would say that pollution is an infringement of peoples' property rights, and that property owners should sue the polluter. Conservatives tend to reject both approaches as an impingement on business free…

Why do you say "Conservatives tend to reject both approaches as an impingement on business freedoms."? I really do want to know what you are basing your beliefs about Conservatives on. I, and the circles I've been in, would not necessarily do that. We would reject regulations that are too strict (which, lately, most environmental regulations have been). We would also reject the Federal Government being involved, sinc…

> We would reject regulations that are too strict (which, lately, most environmental regulations have been)

What?!

There are no rules against dumping limitless amounts of CO2 into the air, how is none too much?

Or do you reject the scientific premises of climate change?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#238

Post by mirimir »

will_brown wrote: post #140
monksy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations, The closest that we have in the US is the attorney general in your state. Don't expect a quick action from them.

The US also has Qui Tam lawsuits, meaning on behalf of the king , one of the more well known versions are whistleblower cases. Though the whistleblower only receives a rather small percent (10% is common, but varies), these lawsuits are some of the largest judgments in history, in particular as related to illegal kickbacks in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. The common facts are the business is engaging…

Yes. But generally, there must have been injury to the government.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#239

Post by Pica_soO »

I wish there was a way to preemptive lawsuit a industry, before it even undertakes a operation. Basically, a group of people bets with lawsuits on the damages done to society by a industrial operation, forcing anyone to endeavor such operations to build a huge deposit of settlement and legalfees to cover the threat - on for example cutting down "rainforrest". As state actors have proven lousy wardens on these goods of society, maybe the interest of private stakeholders might put such a bounty on the head of damaging activity's, that these cease or be replaced with less "dangerous" replacement endeavors, previously not viable in a market economy that rewards distributed short term damages to everyone.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#240

Post by dragonwriter »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #193
jacquesm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. For all you know the guy was illegally in the United States, it still doesn't matter. In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getti…

> I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. From the very top of your Google link: > There is no guarantee that the person who caused the accident will even have insurance. You may have to file a personal injury laws…

> You sue when the other person is uninsured.

Well, if you have uninsured driver coverage, you just let your insurance handle both your compensation and collection from the uninsured driver to make themselves whole (including lawsuit, if necessary and likely to be cost effective.)

Post reply on HN