Many decades ago, the tort laws included a concept of degree of responsibility. For example, consider a case from a few years ago. On her way to work, A woman bought coffee from a MacDonalds drive in & probably a hamburger, cheeseburger, or MacMuffin (The account only mentioned coffee, but few people buy only coffee on their way to work). She spilled the coffee in her lap & was burned. She sued Macdonalds for a large sum (over a million, I think) which was awarded (I think the award was reduced on appeal due to excessive punitive damages). Her suit was based on the high temperature of the coffee, which I think was claimed to be 180 degrees. Gee: I wonder how many people prefer lukewarm coffee. Under the old laws, the court could assign a degree of responsibility. Under current laws, the party with deep pockets can be sued for the entire amount. Under the old laws, the court could assign responsibility of zero to 100% to the woman & the remainder (if any) to MacDonalds. It seems to me that the old laws were more reasonable. A person driving a car & drinking coffee should be considered at least partially responsible for spilling the coffee. I think 50% would be too low a degree of responsibility, especially if she was holding something in her other hand. Note that politicians are often lawyers. Note also that lawyers are good at lobbying for laws which favor them. Being able to sue the party with deep pockets for the entire amount surely benefits lawyers who typically get a percentage of the award in lawsuits. The plaintiff is often unable to pay an attorney up front, which would probably be cheaper than the typical 30 to 50% of the amount awarded.