Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90. There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.
This is assuming the first 10 victims are going to act in a selfish way. That's basically assuming victims behave like companies (which must be selfish because their management has to protect them). That's despicable.
What's despicable? That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met? Or the "assumption" that people would behave that way?
If acknowledging how people normally behave, especially when there's no moral obligation for them to behave otherwise, seems despicable, a lot of reality will become unacknowledgeable.
Why would a claimant intentionally take a lower settlement to keep funds available for later claimants? They have as much obligation to do so as you do to give up a portion of your paycheck to make sure claimants against J&J are paid out. Why would being the victim of crime specially obligate someone? Isn't that just a second victimization?