Actually most law suits are not what they seem.
Most large sum law suits are more about bringing change than for trying to recoup damages.
For example, by suing the car manufactures for emission issues, if they lose they will be pressured into making changes to vehicles that will produce fewer emissions.
This means that manufactures will either have to focus on alternate fuel technologies, or by making vehicles that are more efficient at burning the fuels which will not only help the environment but will also result in better gas mileage vehicles.
This type of pressure can be witnessed by the difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Compensatory meaning compensation, this is usually the amount to compensate someone for their expenses.
Punitive damages are punishment to hurt the company enough to make changes
Example would be:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, No. 01-1289
While compensatory damages were at 1 million dollars, punitive damages were at 145 million dollars.
1 million dollars is no big deal to a large company, they will pay it and move on, it would cost them more than 1 million to make changes.
However if a company has to cough up 145 million dollars, it has just cost them more than it would have if they would have made change.
So in the specific case where California is suing the auto manufactures, I am pretty confidant it is more about forcing change than anything else
There is historical data that in the past auto manufactures were aware of dangerous flaws in vehicles but the bean counters determined it would cost more to recall the automobiles than it would to settle law suits, even in the case of death or sever injury.
So in the past vehicle recalls were often disregaurded
However there are a lot more product recalls lately because companies are now aware they can be sued for punitive damages which in the end could cost them more than making changes.
Just my .02