John Smith compresses three boon companies into his coupe for a Sunday joy ride. After refreshments at a road house John contests for the right of way with a limited train. Result: Four dead and a $26,000 claim against the state fund “jack-pot.”

Our old friend, John Doe, now a prominent bootlegger, is conveying a valuable cargo from Toledo to Cincinnati. Pursued by hi-jackers he misses a turn and ends his career in a ditch. Result: One dead and a $6,500 claim against the state fund “jack-pot”.

Then there is Richard Roe, another old friend. This time he happens to be the rollicking son of a rich and indulgent papa. Returning from a party with his lady friend and driving one of those sporty roadsters he makes a futile effort to climb a telegraph pole. Result: Richard killed, his lady friend badly hurt, and the state pays the rich and indulgent father $6,500 and the young lady $4.00 a day for some weeks.

William Brown driving fifty miles an hour jumps the track at a curve. Result: One dead and a claim against the state “jack-pot” for $6,500.

Samuel Green is a pedestrian. He steps from between-cars parked in the middle of a block on a boulevard and without looking either way attempts to cross.

Clearly such an imposition would be arbitrary, paternalistic and bureaucratic. All that a government based upon principles of liberty can rightly exact is that each owner shall put up security or a guaranty of responsibility in whichever best suits him of all practicable forms that will affect the purpose above specified.

Few of the measures now pending or proposed satisfy this condition. The majority of such measures prescribe that, as optional alternatives to insurance, the automobile owner must either (a) file a surety company bond, or (b) deposit cash or securities with a public official. But neither of these two promises to be a satisfactory alternative to insurance in many cases.

Corporate surety bonds without a deposit of cash or similar collateral are not available to a majority of automobile owners. And the expenses, difficulties and delays incident to the recovery of funds that once get into the hands of public officials will deter all but the most optimistic from having recourse to the other alternative. Consequently a law which would permit only these two alternatives to insurance, would practically be neither more nor less than compulsory insurance for the vast majority.

The number of cases where members of a family seek indemnity when the insured head of the family is said to be responsible for the injuries complained of, is becoming quite alarming from an underwriting standpoint. The guest hazard also is growing. Any insurance adjustor can tell you how claims quickly mature and grow in size when it is discovered that the car owner carries insurance.

Companies writing workmen’s compensation insurance report not only a steady increase in accident frequency in many industries, but also an alarming increase in malingering. A minor scratch is often an excuse for a week’s lay off at the expense of the insurance company. And I might say in passing that there is no statistical foundation for Judge Marx’s assumption that the workmen’s compensation laws have decreased accidents.

One need not be possessed of a gifted imagination to picture the happy hunting ground which would be provided for claimants under the Marx wholesale indemnification plan.

It ought not be necessary for me to spend much time in discussing the many dangers incident to opening in any state capitol such a pork-barrel as the Marx plan provides. I will, however, state a few of them.

As all victims would be paid regardless of fault, all that the claimant would have to do would be to file proof of the accident and show the extent of his injury. In most cases the evidence would be entirely within his control. The fraud possibilities of such a situation are tremendous. That political considerations would weigh heavily in the distribution of such a fund need hardly be argued.

An army of officers and investigators would be needed to check up every accident if the grossest kind of frauds on the part of claimants were to be avoided. And perhaps even more officials might be needed to check up some of the investigators. Unlike industrial accidents, automobile accidents are widely scattered and often occur in out of the way places. Imagine how many state job holders it would require to make proper inquiry into every highway accident that occurred in Ohio this year!

Gordon Cole slips on an icy sidewalk and breaks a leg. He is a day laborer and sole support of a large family. Is there any state fund jack-pot to pay Gordon $4 a day while his leg is mending? There is not.

These illustrations also might be continued indefinitely, and all of you also can add to them from your own personal knowledge. What I am this time trying to impress on you is the fact that automobile accidents do not cause all of the suffering and distress which go to make up the uncertainties of life. And I also am trying to make you see that the principle of compensation regardless of fault as to one particular kind of accidents or to all classes of accidents is so glaringly and startlingly inequitable that it should be rejected on the ground of public policy, if for no other reason.

That a compulsory security law would entail a large increase in the public forces now engaged in the registration of automobiles goes without saying. And an examination of the pending measures for compulsory security or insurance shows that under many of them other state departments would be similarly involved. The increase in public expenses and consequently in taxes from these causes would be considerable.

Moreover compulsory security would, as has been previously explained, result in a very large increase in litigation. In Boston, according to an estimate attributed to the Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner, about half the jury cases tried in the courts are for damages for injuries in automobile accidents. In Cincinnati the courts are so flooded with such cases, that one of the Judges of the Superior Court has made the suggestion that the courts should be relieved of this burden by providing for compensation, out of a state fund, to all persons injured in automobile accidents, regardless of fault.

I could continue such illustrations almost indefinitely. All of you can add to them from your own personal knowledge. What I am trying to impress on you by their use is the fact that under the Marx plan every motor car owner in Ohio will be compelled by the State to indemnity victims of such accidents. What equity can there be in such an arrangement? Is there any legal, moral or social justification for such an enforced contributionship? If there indeed be sound arguments in the affirmative I would like to hear them. Click here to view best quotes in your area.

Let us next look at the other side of the picture.

Andrew Black, carpenter, takes a day off to fix a leak in the roof of his modest home. He slips, falls to the ground and is killed. Is a state fund jack-pot contemplated to pay the heirs $6,500 in this worthy case? It is not.
Mrs. Henry Jones is a widow with two children to support. She takes in washing. While at work she is badly scalded and is compelled to spend many weeks in the hospital charity ward. Is a state-fund jack-pot contemplated to provide indemnity in this likewise worthy case? It is not.

Referring to accident prevention, the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety has pointed out that one of its most important phases “is the problem of securing uniformity of legislation, regulation, statistics and practices.”

The flow of street and highway traffic recognizes no political boundaries and cannot be hampered by changing principles of control, even though local conditions may dictate the necessity of local changes of detail, without creating that confusion and uncertainty which is in itself a menace to the safety of motorists and pedestrian alike.
The same observation applies to the problem of securing financial responsibility on the part of automobile operators. There are great practical difficulties in the way of procuring compliance with requirements for insurance or security imposed under a state law, by automobiles coming into such state from other states.

If such cars should be exempted from the application of the state law, manifestly the state would discriminate against its own citizens, besides which the law would fail to give protection to its citizens against injuries caused by such cars. On the other hand, if, by such requirements, automobiles from other states should be largely excluded, millions in trade would be lost to the state.

To start with, it should be appreciated that we are not confronted with any general or growing disposition to recklessness. On the contrary, the ratio of injuries inflicted to the number of automobiles registered is steadily decreasing. That is convincingly indicated by the following data, from the “Bulletin of Safety Education,” February 1, 1925, published for the Education Section of the National Safety Council, by the National Bureau of Casualty and Surety Underwriters, relative to automobile accident death rates:

But by thorough measures for prevention the absolute number of automobile accident injuries can be largely reduced. That is shown by the following illustrations of what has already been done:
In Connecticut, according to “Bulletin No. 13,” of the Department of Motor Vehicles, dated November 18, 1924, the State Police were put on the roads in full force on May 1, 1924. The following comparative figures of fatal accidents show the results:

Total fatally injured, 1923 1924
January to April—both inclusive 37 88
May to October—both inclusive 185 140

And from the full figures, here epitomized, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles deduces the conclusion: “It is apparent that police discipline and supervision . . . are producing results in Connecticut.”

In 1924 the Massachusetts Safety Council organized a special campaign in the cities of Cambridge and Somerville, which had shown the highest ratio of fatalities to children of any cities in the state. As a consequence there was a reduction of five in the number of children’s deaths in that area, during that year, as against an increase of forty children’s deaths in the state as a whole.

Second: That every Ohio citizen injured in this state in an accident involving an Ohio owned car be paid a stipulated compensation out of this “jack-pot.”

Third: That the premium payment by the car owner relieves him of all civil liability for any accident in which he may be involved and the injured person must accept the state award in full settlement or go without.

That’s all there is to it. Nothing could be simpler. It is true some minor modifications have been added from time to time, but these are not material. Because of the criticism which has been hurled at the state insurance fund proposal, it is now suggested that perhaps private companies might be permitted to write this business. That I am sure is only a temporary concession by the author. His whole theory naturally revolves about the state fund idea. And in addition I am quite sure there are not many private liability companies which would want to underwrite business under this plan at any price.