zlacker

As a taxpayer, I'd much prefer individual DMV agents being sued and having to defend themselves, compared to the DMV itself being sued and my tax money being used in its defense.

>>nerdpo+(OP)
Would you prefer that individual programmers be sued (instead of their employers) and have to defend themselves when apps/programs crash due to bugs?

Because that's basically what you're saying you want.

And anyways, if the DMV agent was acting in their capacity as a DMV employee and following established procedure, the DMV would end up paying their legal costs and settlements against the employee anyways...but without getting a say in the defense against the underlying lawsuit.

>>nerdpo+(OP)
It's an interesting problems. Doctors have liability insurance for this reason basically, which just pushes healthcare costs even higher, and creates this very opaque system of accountability and care quality.

>>nerdpo+(OP)
Your position is really contrary to your interests.

DMV agents are probably not very wealthy. By suing them you would simply drive an underpaid worker into bankruptcy and probably never get much money back.

Meanwhile, the DMV can easily scapegoat it's employee and never reform or make any systematic changes. Furthermore you would have no recourse to sue them directly since they can just keep hiring more poor workers to be thrown under the bus.

Ultimately the tax payers (or voters) need to keep the DMV accountable. There is no alternative. Democracy doesn't have shortcuts. The tax payers have to pay when the government screws up. More to the point - the tax payer ALWAYS ends up paying when the government screws up, without exception, 100% of the time. Either they pay by having a corrupt DMV that hurts society and everyone at large, or they pay through lawsuits and higher costs at the DMV.