Why would any innocent person settle a lawsuit and pay millions of dollars to settle it? Isn't settling a lawsuit ADMITTING GUILT?

Guilt is implied but why do innocent people plea bargain? They very well do when risk of losing is great. As biased as you are do you trust a jury made up of people like yourself that may be on the other side of every one of your opinions? I wouldn't. Should Trump trust a jury made up of Rosies? This post was edited by O-uknow at January 9, 2017 7:50 AM MST

To make it go away. Especially if it is a public person or business. No generally by agreeing to a settlement the payer admits no guilt and the payee agrees to a gag order. 
As O-uknow said innocent take plea bargains all the time. They are playing the odds. Same would apply to a lawsuit. 
A few years back a lady was trespassing on my private property (even passed the purple paint marking border) and my dog knocked her down and bit her. Just a puncture wound not a big tear or gash. According to MO law (posted below) for the dog owner to be liable the bitee must be on public or lawfully on private property. I was representing myself and was relying on this specification in thelaw. I still believe I would have won. However we found out my home owners insurance would cover the incident. (Did not think HO ins would apply because it didn't happen at home) The insurance was not concerned about fighting the case. They worried about losing much bigger in court. They settled with her without admitting any fault on our part. 


 273.036. 1. The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation, any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner or possessor of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or possessor's knowledge of such viciousness. Owners and possessors of dogs shall also be strictly liable for any damage to property or livestock proximately caused by their dogs. If it is determined that the damaged party had fault in the incident, any damages owed by the owner or possessor of the biting dog shall be reduced by the same percentage that the damaged party's fault contributed to the incident. The provisions of this section shall not apply to dogs killing or maiming sheep or other domestic animals under section 273.020.

This post was edited by my2cents at January 9, 2017 8:02 PM MST

Nope.  It's a numbers game.   It's complicated and you are not expected to understand.  But feel free to ask 23 more questions about it.