I wonder if some of that isn't the mentality of "I've been wronged and somebody's gotta be held responsible!"
I think it is more a case of, "
The defendant has insurance therefore the only one hurt will be in insurance company so why not grant the defendant a windfall."
My wife once sat next to a district court judge on an airline flight and during their conversation he said exactly that. When, my wife pointed out that we all pay for the insurance either directly in the form of premiums or indirectly in the form of increased prices to pay for the increased premiums, the judge was quiet and very thoughtful and finally confessed to her, "
I guess you are right. That never occurred to me before." The scary thing to me is the judge, who had a reputation of being a very good jurist, was so wrapped up in the mechanics and letter of the law that he had never considered the impact not only on those directly involved but the general public as well.
