Typically juries who have to decide payouts for civil cases award enormous payouts against large companies with little or no objective liability.

• A drunken man dives into 6 inches of muddy water, hits his head on the bottom, and becomes a triplegic. He sues the owners of the house he was near (who weren't even home).
• An old woman spills coffee on her lap and suffers third degree burns. She sues the international fast-food chain who sold her the coffee.
• A man in a stopped train pushes through the doors knowingly on the wrong side and gets hit by a train which amputates his limbs. He sues the train company because the doors were defective by being capable of being forced open.

These people get awarded huge sums after being judged as being victims of a large corporation. Why?

• Political correctness has educated much of the population into believing that poorer people are automatically victims of richer people (or of large organizations), and hence see this is way of balancing things.
• A person in the jury feels they are far more likely to be an old person spilling coffee on their lap than a major shareholder in an international fast-food chain. They feel they are setting a precedent which is in their personal interests.
• They see one person suffering, and another group well off and want to play Robin Hood.

Unfortunately they can't see the effect it has on them. Ultimately businesses have to take public liability insurance, and much of this cost is passed on to the consumer or the tax-payer. This cost is factored into every good they buy, and every service they consume. The average person does not understand supply and demand curves, and believes they are making the poor richer by making the decision. It is one of the most significant failings of democracy.

It also perpetrates an attitude in which people don't bother to take care, and don't bother taking responsibility for their actions because 'someone else' is always to blame.

See

• Judiciary