The Case for No-Fault Insurance
![handle is hein.journals/mislj44 and id is 33 raw text is: THE CASE FOR NO-FAULT INSURANCE
Robert E. Keeton*
I. THE NEED FOR REFORM
The case for no-fault automobile insurance is founded on a dem-
onstrated need for reform of the fault-based automobile accident repara-
tions system. The shortcomings of that system are severe. The body of
published materials identifying and documenting those shortcomings
is now so extensive that few among even the most interested inquirers
would wish to examine it all. The need for reform is presented here in
capsule form-in eight quoted points,' together with brief explanatory
comments.
First. The negligence system is an incomplete system of repara-
tion. It leaves victims themselves to bear much accidental loss
that could easily be paid through insurance. It denies recovery
altogether to some injured persons, and it underpays others.
Moreover, the system would be subject to even more severe
condemnation on this ground of incompleteness if it were faith-
ful to its underlying theories of basing liability on negligence
and denying recovery because of contributory negligence (or,
in a growing number of states, proportionately reducing recov-
ery on this ground) .2
Those who defend the tort system against this charge that it leaves
many victims of traffic accidents uncompensated often do so on the
ground that it is not the purpose of the tort system to compensate every
victim. Indeed, they say, it is deliberately aimed at denying compensa-
tion to those victims it classifies as undeserving. But this defense misses
the point that when we inquire whether a system serves us well we
should be asking not only whether the system measures up to its own
aims but also, more fundamentally, whether its aims are what they should
be. Thus, though not conclusive of the whole question as to whether
*Professor of Law, Harvard University. B.B.A. 1940, LL.B. 1941, University of
Texas; S.J.D. 1956, Harvard University. I gratefully acknowledge that many of the ideas
presented here were developed in the Study of Automobile Claims Systems in which
Professor Jeffrey O'Connell was my colleague. In preparing this article, I have drawn
freely on the report of that study, published as R. KEETON & J. O'CONNELL, BASIC PRO-
TECTION FOR THE TRAFFIC VICTIM-A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORMING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
(1965).
'The eight points are quoted. from COMPENSATION SYSTEMs-THE SEARCH FOR A
VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO NEGLIGENCE LAW 2-3 (1971) [cited hereinafter as COMPENSA-
TION SYSTEMS], reprinted from P. KEETON & R. KEETON, CASES AND MATERIALS ON THE
LAw OF TORTS 458-59 (1971).
2P. KEETON & R. KEETON, supra note 1, at 458.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/mislj44&div=11&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Case for No-Fault Insurance
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most