True, and personal responsibly goes out the window, as someone will sue on your behalf when you are a vegetable or dead, but consider this:

I have a pretty strong background in ergonomics and human factors, not the things you get in airline classes or CRM stuff, but actual human factors engineering at the graduate level. I notice many/most entrances/driveways top businesses with significant hazards and restrictions to visibility that almost guarantee a cyclist or walker/runner on the sidewalk will get nailed, as the car doesn't stop at the stop sign, but instead either stops and then pulls ahead 10-20 feet so they can actually see the road, or worst of all they just don't stop at the stop-sign and stop at that distance that is 10-20 feet beyond the stopsign. I see this all day long. There are usually stupid signs, bushes and all sorts of other obstructions that negate the usefulness of the stopsign. The intention is that someone will stop, look both ways, then pull into traffic when it's clear. The reality is that you can't see jack **** from the stopsign, so due to human nature they will either ignore the improperly designed system, or use it improperly, either stopping well after the stopsign, or stopping, then pulling forward and stopping (usually while looking in the opposite direction they intend to be traveling momentarily, so if they will be turning right, they are probably looking left, not straight, and certainly not right).

So now, because of the obstructions that were allowed to be built up around the sign, intersection, and so on, and the fact that the "system" gets used improperly because it was designed and built improperly, some runner, cyclist, or other person, dies as a result. Oh, it looked like the car was stopping, but there was some glare and you couldn't quite see the person's face. What, you should be able to avoid the car? Easier said than done, those same obstructions hide the cyclist, jogger, etc. Those cars can move a lot faster than a walker or cyclist can react. They assume that the automobiles will follow the proper rules, stop at the stopsign, then proceed when it's safe. Is that unreasonable? The "responsibility" circle kind of goes back full circle, as a lawsuit is "punishment" for someone that didn't take the proper responsibility in the first place...

Unfortunately, the "unreasonable" part all to often is expecting people to take reasonable steps before something happens, to design the system properly, to not let greed get the best of them, to ensure the proper safety checks are designed into the system, even though they may not seem to offer any monetary benefit at the time. So the only recourse left is to sue, with the penalty so high it never happens again. This is idealistic of course and in the real world it seems to come down to how much "power" one wields and how good their lawyers are.

Many of the lawsuits on engine manufacturers and others are absolutely ridiculous. Pilots that were drunk or that grossly mismanaged their engine or demonstrated gross negligence. There should be reasonable limits, but by the same token there is usefulness in litigation, as it's often the only recourse to "fix" something that is blatantly wrong. If anything, this is systemic of a much larger problem in our society, which is that we want everything, we want it now, we want it better than it was for the last people, and we want it cheaper.