Hacker News Reader

Comment by libria | Hacker News Reader

> Singh’s insurance policy covered the cost of the repairs; he declines to specify the total amount but says the incident did not increase his monthly premium.

I assume they did so only after the at-fault driver's insurance was maxed out?

View on HN

If the law would hold me liable for damages to a car worth over about $100K, even if I was 100% at fault, the law is deeply unjust. At some point the act of putting an absurdly expensive car in public is negligent behavior.

> negligent behavior

You know what's much more of a negligent behavior? burning a red light. And you know what's even more valuable than a supercar? A human life.

People can and do put their cars right through houses, which cost much more than $100K. And some houses are situated in spots where people crash into them over and over, like at the end of a T where it isn't visible to a reckless or drunk driver until too late. So wouldn't your logic apply equally to such a house?

If you drive up onto the sidewalk and break both my legs, I would certainly expect you to pay more than $100k if my medical bills came to that. Or more generally, a human life is worth quite a few times more than $100k - does that make it negligent for me to go outside?

I did wonder that, the article didn't actually specify what happened to the Uber driver. Beyond the inevitable heart attack when your stupidity embeds your Honda Civic into the side of a $3m supercar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com