Jonny5
Senior Member
Ya, these things are always trotted out in the media for entertainment with no context. The reality here is an insurance company battle which is out of control of either the TTC or the victim. The cost of the insurance payout has to be determined and then split between the victim's medical/disability insurance carrier, and the TTC's property owner's liability insurance carrier. Neither wants to pay anything (because insurance companies never want to pay claims), so here we are with both sides driving to litigation to settle this.
These are Tort cases, so determining who is at fault is essential. "Fault" is almost always split as a percentage between the involved parties, but neither side was the perpatrator of the crime. So how do you say who is at fault when neither were at fault for the direct cause of the injury? The answer is this sensationalist litigation process now underway. The TTC's liability insurance company would almost certainly demand they counter-sue so that the medical insurance company has to pay, because after all, isn't that what medical and disability insurance is supposed to be for? Why should the TTC's insurance company pay her lost wages when she has her own "lost wages from injury (disability)" insurance?*
If the TTC refused to participate here it would basically void their insurance contract, and it would lead to a future with a new carrier that would certainly bill even higher premiums and even higher deductibles, if not far higher. Going before a judge to determine all of this is a very normal practice, but our revenue-starved media thrive on sensationalist infotainment junk news, and this produces something so tasty they can't help themselves. I mean, right now, sports gambling, pawn brokers, and bankruptcy specialists is all that's keeping them on the air. Gotta get more eyeballs on those! The reality is the trial will delve into much more detailed nuances than have been presented in these court briefs, but either way, the TTC had to counter-sue because their insurance company would never allow them to admit guilt without immediately voiding the policy.
*All of the above assumes the victim has such insurance I noted, which most white-collar or unionised workers all have by default in their group benefits package, but I don't know for certain she does or is even in one of those categories of workers. I don't actually know anyone involved here.
Last edited:
#/media/File:JR-Central-Tokyo-STA_Home14-15.jpg "Stick Out Tongue :p")
latforms_of_Tokyo_Station_(Tōkaidō_Shinkansen)#/media/File:JR-Central-Tokyo-STA_Home14-15.jpg