Compulsoty car insurance – do we need it?

Clearly then, the courts are already “full up” with automobile litigation, and, if the amount of such litigation should be doubled or trebled—the probable result of any form of compulsory automobile insurance—the number of judges and court officers, besides court room space for trial terms, would have to be largely increased, all at a corresponding increase in public taxes—or the courts would be hopelessly congested.

Recoveries under meritorious claims would be delayed. And jury service, a serious burden to many, would likewise be largely increased.

While not of primary importance, these additions to the already heavy load of taxes on the public, together with the truly tremendous pecuniary burden that would be imposed upon the automobile owners, should be taken into account when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of any proposal of the kind under discussion.

What is really wanted is simply that no automobile shall be licensed until its owner shall first have established his financial responsibility with respect to payment for injuries that may be inflicted upon the public. In practice that may call for the filing by each automobile owner, with a public official, of some form of guaranty of his continuing financial responsibility. But it does not call for compulsory insurance.



Leave a Reply