Pain and Suffering Compensation
I’m wondering if this is something the person filing a legal action may have thought of, or if this is something the barristers like to throw on to get some additional cash.
Though I believe there are occasions when this kind of things could be applicable, and an individual may merit some cash for this kind of thing, I suspect other times it is just gluttony. A mate from Australia tells me that Yankee’s have the reputation of suing at the drop of the hat, and I can fully see why this is. If somebody is completely doing something with no regard for human life, this could be something that would teach them a lesson.
However, if you are concerned in an automobile accident, and it was judged one individual’s fault, it could be something you need to skip. If they caused the accident, but they weren’t being reckless, maybe discomfort and suffering compensation is taking things a touch too far. You do hear about discomfort and suffering compensation all the time, and the majority of it comes from your own TV. A major proportion of my local commercials feature barristers, and these counsels are always ones that deal with the higher price problems.
They know where the cash is and the way to get it. I assume my concern is that there are occasions when it would appear it is too simple to get money out of somebody for pain and suffering, and a few of these cases should have not seen the light of day. There’s the legendary case where the lady sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and burned her. Everyone knows it was an unnecessary court action, and this girl simply lacked commonsense. She won an enormous agony and suffering compensation though , and this just led straight to more of the same. It is a shame that folk like to milk their own foolishness to get some other person to give them a free go.