There is another general objection which deserves attention, and this relates to any type of compulsory liability insurance. The automobile presents a moving hazard. It’s obliterated state lines. When the state, insures automobiles it must adopt a couple of courses; first, insure the car only when operated within the licensing state; second, provide that insurance stick to the car.
When the state limits its protection to the own territory then the automobile owner will have to seek coverage elsewhere at additional expense, if at all, for trips into other states.
When the state undertakes to create its insurance stick to the car, it’ll be found asked to defend suits from Maine to California and from Washington to Florida. This implies more officials, more investigators and a goodly flock of widely click here scattered lawyers.
The legal profession-Bench and Bar-in song of the country have hit on something which looks for them being a “whale of a panacea”-that is, to kick motorists away from court entirely, by compelling these phones insure compensation to all or any persons injured by their automobiles, no matter fault, and providing that claims for such compensation shall be adjusted and all contested claims therefor shall be decided, informally and summarily, by administrative officials. That is “compulsory automobile compensation insurance.” Its proponents claim sweepingly it would clear away the jury trial calendars of the courts of most crash litigation; assure relief to all or any victims of motor vehicle collisions; cost less than present automobile liability insurance; and, just like the workmen’s compensation law, be equitable to all or any concerned and provide few controversies or uncertainties.
The objections for this “bright idea”-exclusive of questions of constitutionality for lawyers to debate-are too numerous and sophisticated to become adequately presented on an occasion similar to this. The very best I can do is to indicate several.
In the first place, it shouldn’t be regarded as a practicable proposition or looked upon from the average person as a promising social remedy until its proponents can present it in concrete form, having a fairly definite plan and essential specifications, that will not “fall down” upon first analysis. Nevertheless its proponents don’t have that far yet. At the moment their proposals are extremely “half-baked,” embryonic and unformulate or shifting for intelligible discussion. Owing to possible differences in scope, coverage, scale of advantages, way of administration, etc., compulsory automobile compensation insurance policies are effective at a hundred roughly materially review variations.
Of such forms as I often hear or looked at, some would cost prohibitively; some will be grossly inequitable for the law-abiding motorists; some will be grossly inequitable to numerous of the injured; some would fall far short of assuring relief to all or any the victims; some wouldn’t relieve the courts materially; some would even multiply the burdens on the public of automobile liability litigation; none would relieve the courts of automobile property damage litigation; nearly all would tend to increase recklessness on the highways; nearly all would invite fraud and impositions; none would operate with anything approaching the quality of freedom from uncertainty and controversies that characterizes the workmen’s compensation laws; then there is undertake and don’t but would certainly fall about 75 percent short of the promises above stated.