Originally Posted by
4468
It’s almost impossible to avoid the conclusion, this is just all about money. Lot’s of it!
That is what civil cases are for; damages.
Consider, a car driven by an employee of a common carrier leaves the road and smashes through your your fence. The evidence to meet the (quite properly) very high bar to obtain a criminal conviction for trespass is insufficient perhaps because you can't establish the identity of the driver of he claims persuasively he swerved to avoid a child.
Still you sue the company for damages to have your fence repaired and to recover the costs you incurred while the fence was damaged as a consequence of the trespass. Those losses could be significant depending on the circumstances and could include punitive and well as compensatory damages if gross negligence (such as the driver, irrespective of the circumstances, was in violation of employer's safety policies regarding route and driving time.)
Do you really believe that your decision to sue for damages should be pilloried because a criminal conviction was unobtainable for any reason, including (perhaps) your own failure to secure evidence or your confusion in the immediate aftermath?
I'm not drawing conclusions. I'm simply trying to point out that the absence of a criminal complaint or even a report to police does not rule out legitimate cause for civil action.
I fully admit this is an imperfect analogy and I'm not trying to be argumentative, simply that it is unfair to presume damages didn't result or an act didn't occur because an individual or the state chose not to seek a criminal charge.