In the example, neither Amy nor Sue are out any less than the other. Their insurance companies are, but insurance companies (to my knowledge) do not base rate increases off how much they have to pay out to fix the other person's car. I could be wrong in this, since I have been in only one accident, and I was not at fault.
It seems that the angle you're coming from is, "Punishments should be based on intent and the riskiness of the action, not the actual consequences of the action." That philosophy, I think, actually discourages people from being careful. To take an extreme example, shoot a gun out the window -- if you randomly happen to hit a baby, you're no worse off than if you shoot a puppy. Or nothing at all, for that matter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-08 03:42 pm (UTC)It seems that the angle you're coming from is, "Punishments should be based on intent and the riskiness of the action, not the actual consequences of the action." That philosophy, I think, actually discourages people from being careful. To take an extreme example, shoot a gun out the window -- if you randomly happen to hit a baby, you're no worse off than if you shoot a puppy. Or nothing at all, for that matter.