>...I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few. Generally speaking I'm in agreement with you there. I

>...I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few. Generally speaking I'm in agreement with you there. It's just that I view giving up a paid seat due to rare but exigent circumstances analogous to motorists involved in a minor collision pulling off to the side of the road as a common courtesy. >We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so litigation is not a solution; it's mitigation. Litigation is somewhat of an imperfect solution when it acts as a deterrent. >On a personal note, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of letting people do bad things because we can litigate later is corrosive to society. Agreed, but unfortunately there's far from perfect oversight of corporate behavior. Even when you're talking cases where people die due to gross negligence, criminal charges are extremely rare. Litigation—when it has merit—acts as an imperfect second line of defense against misbehavior that would otherwise go unpunished. It's capitalism's way of keeping itself in check. It is however far from perfect. Many companies will simply fight meritorious litigation on the basis that it's the cheaper option, regardless if doing so is morally bankrupt. For example, a company may decide issuing a recall for an issue that kills people is more expensive than just dragging the existing litigation out as much as they can.