I believe individuals should be responsible for their actions and not society as a whole and not companies who are truly innocent. Yes, there have been abuses done by companies and corporations. But, how can all frivolous and irresponsible lawsuits be ended and nullified and not even allowed to continue at all? Or is the deeper problem that the lawyers of the world enjoy the existence of such lawsuits because it is an income generator for them? Some examples are in order:
1 A person buys a hot drink from a fast food or restaurant chain and spills it on themselves; they sue and are awarded money for damages.
2 A no good low life thief or burglar breaks into a store and the store owner defends and protects himself and his property, and the thief is damaged and sues for damages, and wins. Or, the store owner faces criminal offenses for defending himself and his property.
3 A bystander is in a restaurant or public place and a violent attacker attempts to steal or attack people, and the bystander does the morally right thing and uses physical force to stop the assailant, either killing them or injuring them. They or their family (if the attacker died) sues the bystander for "pain and suffering and lost wages" or something, or, the bystander faces criminal charges, for having done the morally right thing and protecting human lives.
While there were no "good old days" at least in the Pre Modern times you could count on being able to protect yourself with the confidence that the legal system would back you up. The only exception is if the attacker was part of the local "good old boys" or something similar.
4 A man buys a knife from a knife maker and he abuses or mis uses the knife in a way it was NOT to be used for, he damages himself and then turns around and sues the knife maker/knife company.
How can these nonsense types of law suits and charges be prevented from happening?
For example, demoncase, am I correct in saying that in general, in 1800s England and 1800s USA America, if a store owner used physical force to protect their store from a violent armed attacker or a thief and they either killed the thief or injured the thief, almost every single judge and magistrate that existed at the time (say Victorian times, you know) would side with the store owner and against the criminal and if anything, the surviving criminal would then face charges rightfully so, for attempting to break in and steal, right?