Insurance claims and compensation for injuries

The existing instrumentality has at hand pay-rolls which obviate any possible fraud in the earning capacity base upon which it doles out benefits. Assuming that we are to follow this precedent, consider the amount of investigation that will be necessary to check the claims of the sufferers from automobile accidents. Imagine the average day of a state employee, verifying statements of a business-man, a lawyer, a farmer, a carpenter and a seamstress. Need to compare insurance rates in your area? Click here.

This leads to another insurmountable obstacle to this visionary scheme. It must either fix a definite standard of compensation for a definite type of injury, or else follow the workmen’s compensation plan in using an earning capacity basis. The first horn of the dilemma will result in over-compensation or under-compensation in every case. Shall a day laborer, with an incapacitating injury to his arm, receive no more than a professional man whose earning ability is unimpaired? Shall a child be paid the same figure as is paid to the wage-earner with a large family? A multitude of similar inequalities readily suggest themselves.

If we choose the other alternative, we face difficulties even more serious than the discovery of the correct earning capacity of a victim. It is demonstrated that 25 per cent to 32 per cent of automobile casualties occur to children under fifteen years of age, that another large group comprise women not gainfully employed and that a third class of sufferers are retired from active industrial life. Who can say what standard is just for apportionment of benefits to such individuals?

Comments are closed.