I'll give you two little samples of what my impression is based on (besides the thousands of articles read and stories of fellow business people operating in the American market):
- when I was in New York I got hit from behind by a guy in a car doing maybe 5 mph. He got out of his car right away, ran over and started pleading with me not to sue him before he thought of asking me how I was. When I told him I'm European and he doesn't have to worry his relief was extreme.
- A customer of ww.com had viewed a scene that he considered 'shocking' (a gay couple walking around nude in their house) and that he would sue for emotional distress because of this. When he found out we were located in Canada he promptly forgot about it.
The first one sounds like an uninsured (maybe unlicensed) driver. This is definitely not the norm. Car accidents are one area where we pretty much don't have to worry about lawsuits at all. Your insurance company talks to their insurance company and they work it out.
The second one just sounds like a crazy person. They probably had no intent to sue, and were just trying to stupidly use the threat as leverage for something.
WW.com has had a number of such threats of lawsuits for all kinds of reasons, exclusively these were by Americans and they were all looking to get money out of us.
In business circles this is simply seen as a cost of doing business in the USA, if you are large enough to be visible you will get sued.
I don't understand what that google link is supposed to demonstrate. Is there something in the results showing that people's insurance doesn't protect them?
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 getting out of their car, assessing the damage - if any - filling out a form and getting on with their day after taking some pictures and shaking hands.
Nobody would even think of being sued, misfortune in Europe rarely leads to some kind of civil lawsuit here (though, if you're drunk or under the influence of drugs or negligent it is of course very well possible there will be a criminal case brought against you).
> In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getting out of their car, assessing the damage - if any - filling out a form and getting on with their day after taking some pictures and shaking hands.
I've been in 3 (minor) accidents in the U.S., and they've all basically ended that way.
- I rear-ended a pickup truck. He had his back gate down, and didn't suffer any damage. He shrugged and drove off.
- A private security patrol car rear-ended me. We took pictures of each other's license and insurance. I filed a claim with my insurance, and their insurance paid the claim.
- A semi/lorry made an illegal turn and hit me. The driver wasn't afraid of a lawsuit, but that he'd lose points on his driver's license and have it revoked. We traded license+insurance information and left.
25 years ago, my mother was in 2 major accidents within a month (neither were her fault). She still suffers from those injuries, but she never filed suit.
I'd have to say that "the most likely response" in the U.S. is probably similar to that in Europe, but the best case is no better in the US, and the worst case is much worse.
> 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 lawsuit to facilitate collection of your damages.
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).
It's just a scam in general. If you have insurance, they go after your insurance for as much as they can. Also a claim to sue isn't actually suing. Nobody sued you, they just claimed they would twice. The threat is very common, but it actually happening is not. It's all very overblown, like the McDonald's coffee incident.
> In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getting out of their car, assessing the damage - if any - filling out a form and getting on with their day after taking some pictures and shaking hands.
Is there no form of insurance at all in Europe? You just take the damage to your car and deal with it? What if you're too badly injured to get out of the car and shake hands?
> 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 insurance company is immaterial, the point is the claim, not the way in which the claim is eventually settled.
> Is there no form of insurance at all in Europe?
Insurance is mandatory, hence the 'filling out a form'.
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
> 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.
> 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).
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.)
> In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getting out of their car, assessing the damage - if any - filling out a form and getting on with their day after taking some pictures and shaking hands.
We actually have enough of a disincentive here to not report accidents to insurance companies because of its effect on long term rates, that this tends to be the outcome of most (anecdotally) auto accidents. I've been in 4 accidents in my lifetime, half my fault, and they've been completely out of the system. Most people have bigger fish to fry like exorbitant healthcare costs, or a racist president.
> We actually have enough of a disincentive here to not report accidents to insurance companies because of its effect on long term rates,
The UK had to regulate this because insurance companies were pushing Uberrimae fidei a bit too much. If you've had an accident and not reported it too them you're not acting in utmost good faith. They were using previous undeclared accidents as a reason to avoid paying out for later accidents.
> In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getting out of their car, assessing the damage - if any - filling out a form and getting on with their day after taking some pictures and shaking hands.
Also in the US. Even when whiplash and compensation for it becomes involved. Like, by far the vast majority of minor accidents go this way.
> Nobody would even think of being sued, misfortune in Europe rarely leads to some kind of civil lawsuit here
It only very rarely leads to civil lawsuits in the US, too.
Being insured is why the most likely response to such a minimal accident in the US is exactly how you describe it in Europe. You don't jump out of your car saying "omg please don't sue me!" You document the damage, exchange info, call the police if necessary (often legally required), and contact your insurance company. They handle the rest.
If I rear-ended somebody and later found out they were suing for whiplash, I'd pass the info along to my insurance company and let them worry about it.
The point is - at the risk of becoming boring and repeating myself - that this has nothing to do with being insured or not but with such a suit or claim being brought in the first place. That's an absolute rarity in Europe and a case would have to be pretty severe to get any compensation.
In the United States there are plenty of people who see wrong or harm (imaginary or real) done to them as a potential payday, whether through the courts or through an insurance company is immaterial.
And my point is that a person who reacts to a minor crash by begging you not to sue him is not even remotely representative of how things work here. You described "the most likely response" in Europe, as if it was somehow different in the US. It's not.
So, are you or are you not in agreement that monetary compensation after accidents (or crimes) is more likely to occur in the United States than in Europe regardless of the mechanism of getting such compensation (through the courts or through an insurance company)?
There are approximately 500K personal injury cases annually in the United States, roughly 50% of those are related to motor vehicle accidents. The vast majority of those (90%+) are settled out of court.
Whether the man was a weirdo or not is a thing I have no knowledge about (and why you would have knowledge about it is a mystery to me) but it seems that he didn't exactly pull his fear out of thin air.
All I need to know to conclude that the guy was an outlier is the story you told and a basic understanding of how things work in the US after a car accident. That is super far from the norm. The way you describe things in Europe is exactly how it happens here nearly every time.
There are lots of crazy people, and gaming the courts is way many of them make a living, or garner attention, or just give themselves something to do when they are otherwise put together. I've been 3rd party to multiple frivolous suits in california. It's shocking to see the amount of work put into lost causes, but people still show up and fight speeding tickets too...so that's just the USA.
I suspect one of the key differences that enables this is that in the United States lawyers can take cases on a contingency basis.
There are other (some European countries too) places where this is possible but in the United States it seems to be much more common, especially in such cases where outcome is a long shot but the pay-off is large.
If you know for sure that you will lose money (and possibly a substantial amount) for bringing a frivolous lawsuit that works as a deterrent. Of course it isn't perfect and may result in some cases that do have merit also not being brought.
The impression is not limited to non-Americans. Filing law suits is tedious and expensive. The common defendants (big companies) like to give the impression that frivolous lawsuits are common because it makes people feel bad about filing them.
That said, of course there are some frivolous lawsuits. There are also many with merit, and it's hard to tell which is which a priori.
