But it does bring up a question, and this goes to the morality of the matter, you say "if your client has a soft tissue case with merit" which I interpret to mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, that they did sustain an injury but "soft tissue" would mean to me probably healable with few, if any, lasting problems, in other words they got bruised, perhaps badly, or even a little more seviere tissue damage like cut with scarring, but overall this will probably not impact their life long term very much. Why do should they be speeking money other than the medical costs and to make up for any lost earnings?

I understand they can get money and the system allows that but how do you justify it on a moral level? I know that if I was injured and it was someone else's fault but in the long term it was going to affect me very little, if any, I would morally question why I wanted to be punitive towards them? My costs? Sure, that's justifiable it is their fault, but money above and beyond that just because the law allows it? It would be very hard for me to justify that morally I think. I would feel like maybe I was just using the situation to enrich myself, and by "enrich" I just mean money above and beyond my losses that I would use as disposable dollars.