Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Creighton Law Review

Abstract

We are now at the end of the first decade of our experience with automobile no-fault plans. Beginning in 1970 and continuing into the middle years of this decade, such plans have been enacted in some twenty-five states. While the enacted plans differ amongst themselves in important detail, they all introduce some system of compulsory first party insurance that provides compensation for the driver and occupants of any given vehicle, regardless of the circumstances which led to the occurrence of the accident in question. Since 1975 or so there has been no new enactment of a state no-fault system, and repeated efforts to introduce some automobile no-fault plan at the federal level, be it through direct enactment or by the creation of minimum standards for state plans, have met with no success, notwithstanding the support that such proposals have received from the Carter administration. On the other hand, while there has been some modification of the early no-fault plans, only Nevada has seen fit to repeal its system in its entirety. It is not inopportune therefore to use the current lull to take stock of the automobile no-fault plans and the premises upon which they rest. In order to do more than restate the statistics commonly cited for or against automobile no-fault plans, it seems necessary, even at this late date, to take a second look at the first principles by which these no-fault plans should be judged, both on their own merits and in comparison with the tort system. The approach adopted here is both historical and analytical. First by looking at the development of nineteenth century tort law, both in England and the United States, I hope to identify the full range of tort and nontort alternatives that can be brought to bear in cases of highway accidents. Thereafter I shall evaluate these alternatives for their relative strengths and weaknesses.

First Page

769

Volume

13

Publication Date

1980

Download

Share

COinS