I flatly reject the notion that the defendant's financial resources should have any bearing whatsoever on the victim's damages. The victim was hurt. That's not disputed, but tort law is based on the principle that victims have a right to be MADE WHOLE again; not that they have to right to cash in big time because a rich guy injured them. This civil trial should be bifurcated. One jury should decide whether or not the defendant is liable for the victim's injuries, and a second jury who hears NOTHING about the defendant's financial resources should determine the victim's ACTUAL damages. Those damages are the same regardless of whether a millionaire hits him or a fast-food employee hits him. What he deserves is a 'constant,' not a variable based on the defendant's income. Now at the criminal level, this is a much more interesting legal/ethical question. It appears as though the prosecutor is attempting to cut the defendant a break by not screwing his career (a felony likely takes him out of the finance field), and simultaneously help out the victim by making sure he has a big payday. ...but that's not justice. The law should be applied equally to everyone. You shouldn't be able to buy your way out of a felony. What's more, this is 200% the defendant's fault. He negligently hit the victim (the tort), and then fled the scene (the felony). He screwed up twice, but he's only going to be on the hook for the tort. That's not right. If it had been you or me who hit the victim, we'd be getting the felony charges. I struggle to see the "justice" here from every angle. This is fine for the defendant and the victim, but society as a whole is irreparably injured by the implication that rich people aren't accountable for felonies.