Drivers and pedestrians – insurance claims

Judge Marx does not advocate that the automobile owner be a collectible defendant, but demands that payment be made for every case of injury or death. Under this proposal the state would create a great organization similar to that administering workmen’s compensation, would tax every vehicle owner, and from the funds secured would pay every claimant without regard to the circumstances under which injury occurred. Visit this website to get free auto insurance quotes.

At the time of the instant address, criticism has driven the scheme’s proponents to the point where they deny any intention to establish a governmental insurance monopoly. But there can be little doubt as to what is really sought when Judge Marx’s address so bristles with reference to the benevolent Industrial Commission.

Before, detailing objections to Compulsory Compensation let us point out the fallacy in urging that the automobile victim occupies a status similar to the injured workman’s, and should share in a fund similar to that available under workmen’s compensation. Historically our institutions always have recognized the peculiar intimacy of the relations between master and servant, and our workmen’s compensation laws are an outgrowth of this relationship.

What contract exists between the automobile driver and, say, a pedestrian? What control has the former over the physical situs of an accident? What compensation is received by one and paid by the other? What profit is realized by the operator because of the pedestrian’s presence? What property of his does the driver direct the other to use in order that a profit be realized? Does operation of a motor vehicle produce a marketable product in whose cost a casualty expense is absorbed by the buying public? Any analogy between the two situations obviously fails.


Comments are closed.