What is a good response to the Information below on why you disagree on there opinion?

I couldnt disagree more when you say that most case dont pass the doctrine of a reasonable person and from my research I cant see any evidence tha prove this.

My reasons for disagreement are the following:

1. The great majority of plaintiffs lawfirms take negligence cases in a contigency fee which means that the lawyer will only get paid if their clients get monetary award. The lawfirm has to put their time, resources, and money for experts to take the case to trial so my assumption is that they have been vetted to be good cases otherwise it would be a huge waste from the lawfirms point of view.

2. In reality most cases settle before trial. According to the department of justice bureau of statistics 73% of tort cases settle. There wouldnt be a reason to settle if the case wasnt strong and very likely to have a favourble outcome for the plaintiff, reinforcing the notion that they would pass the doctrine of a reasonable person. (Settling cases has some positive aspects like: less expense to taxpayers money, a lower caseload for courts, the plaintiff can avoid a long trial that can drag for a couple of years etc)

3. According to the department of justice bureau of statistics only 3.5% of tort cases reached a trial and half of them favoured the plaintiff.

Lastly most businesses have insurance that will cover any neglegence complaints and sadly potential lawsuits are what keeps buisnesses in their tip toes and make sure not to be neglegent.