Why do people assume that anyone who sues is evil?

Not every tort is a truly righteous pursuit of a perceived civil wrong.

Many lawsuits are routinely settled out of court behind closed doors. Often insurers quick to settle for far lower amounts even when they know their policyholder isn't necessarily negligent. What they consider to be nuisance claims. Pay them to make them go away. It's not justice that's being considered, but simply the cost of legal proceedings. And those costs are inevitably passed onto policyholders. Equally when a self-insured municipality has to pay out legitimate and sizable legal settlements, how do they recoup their losses? They are passed onto the taxpayers.

You also have those frequent dynamics of a "David" with a solid case against a "Goliath", where the Goliath prevails by simply a process of attrition. Where a case can be drawn out and buried in continuances to the point where it's not profitable for attorneys to litigate, even if they have a winning case. That's just working the system, putting "justice" aside altogether.

And then there's the legal parameters of a civil action itself. Very different from a criminal trial. Highly subjective in rules of evidence and presentation. Much more like a divorce than a murder trial. Where a clever defending attorney might convince a civil jury in spite of facts. And jurors who may vote against a defendant simply because they are perceived to have the assets (insurance) to cover a loss, even if jurors know the defendant wasn't truly or profoundly negligent.

Many lawsuits can amount to a perversion of justice- not a pursuit of it. It's why if you go across the pond to Europe, you'll find entire legal systems which in comparison make if very difficult to arbitrarily sue much of anyone.

For every attorney's righteous plaintiff or underhanded defendant who wins or loses their case, many others ultimately pay for it. That's not "evil", however I'd say it's a very "ugly" process- and on so many levels.

I know that the lawsuit world is complex and complicated, and that there are many different stories, and that some lawsuits are justified, and others aren't. (But let's not go too far in the other direction. Some very much are justified. ).
But that wasn't the point of my post.
My post was about how people oversimplify this issue. About how they automatically assume the plaintiff is money-grubbing. About how they are willing to write nasty comments about that, even when the plaintiff is a family grieving over the death of their daughter. Granted, not every death is the fault of someone, and even in some cases of death, some lawsuits would be unjustified. But even in those cases, let's not assume that the family is money-grubbing. Let's assume that they're grieving over the loss of their loved one, and that such grief, not avarice, is what's driving their pursuit of a lawsuit.

You have to also factor in that feelings about torts in general run very deep along geographical lines in this country. Move in from both coasts and you'll run into large numbers of people in the heartland who politically don't approve of litigation. Right up to entire states which are politically quite intent on tort reform altogether.

With such a mindset it's easy to "oversimplify" the merits of any tort. A rejection of lawsuits on general principle regardless of how negligent one or more parties might actually be.

Of course aside all that it doesn't preclude people who are simply ignorant of a case to publicly post their bias/dissent either, for whatever reason. Sometimes the Internet brings out the worst in people, for no particular reason. So can election cycles.

It is too bad you can't convert lawsuit money won into jail time for rotten people...maybe people would feel better if you bought jail time...heres $ 40,000 back you get to do 1 year Ha! ha ha

Some people only sue because the police wont arrest the creeps.

Well, in our legal system there's no clear "crossover" to merge criminal and civil cases. Criminal negligence is prosecuted as a crime- not a tort. Although a criminal case that fails in conviction doesn't preclude pursuing as a civil matter. OJ Simpson being a classic example. But OJ didn't go to jail in losing his civil suit. He had to pay damages though.

He's only in prison just up the freeway here as a result of another purely criminal matter.