What the law states Texas auto insurance of torts provides victims of accidents the opportunity to be compensated for damages. Regardless of whether recovery is offered based on strict liability or fault, the object has always been to pay adequately the innocent victim. The negligence system did wonders while automobiles were possessed by relatively few. But, having an increase in traffic, deficiencies were exposed, particularly the fact some worthy victims were not able collect for injuries. One of the most serious difficulty in accident cases was not proving someone was negligent or to blame. Because 40 percent car insurance in Texas of traffic accidents are rear-end collisions and a large percentage of accidents involve drivers who’re flagrantly violating the law-drunk drivers, speeders, stop- sign runners-it is not difficult to place blame. The problem was that most defendants could not pay.
With all the development of casualty insurance, liability was offered to protect automobile owners from lawsuits and also to guard against personal assets’ being carted away with a successful plaintiff. The device of insurance was first designed to guard the wrongdoer instead of compensate the injured. Since several drivers did not carry liability insurance, successful litigants often went unpaid because of the impracticality of obtaining funds from an insolvent defendant. To combat this injustice, Massachusetts in 1927 be¬came the initial state to compel the purchase of automobile liability insurance. For the first time, a state tied permission to function an automobile around the public highway to the possessing auto insurance. Ny and Nc followed, however, not until late inside the 1950′s.
While Massachusetts went toward compulsory insurance, the rest of the country passed legislation with “financial responsibility.” An automobile could possibly be driven traveling of a state having a financial responsibility law with¬out insurance of any type. A motorist who was in an accident due to his own negligence was needed to demonstrate that he was financially effective at investing in the dam¬ages. If he could prove he was insured or which he had independent funds to fund his victim’s expenses, he was allowed to keep driving. But, if the wrongdoer was financially irresponsible-no insurance, no assets-he lost the authority to drive, pending the payment of the lawsuit judgment against him.
Commonly, those states which in fact had financial responsibility laws formed uninsured-motorist pools, financed with a surcharge on automobile registration and accustomed to cover unpaid claims. A renters insurance policy arrangement still is useful in less populated areas, but, inside the more industrial and urban states, financial responsibility has run aground. Because of the increase in accident frequency, along with a rapid surge in the price of claims, the uninsured motorist pools dry up rapidly. The weakness is that everyone gets one free accident-one bite of the apple-before being contacted to purchase liability insurance. Because all drivers pay money in to the pool, the price of the initial accident is absorbed by society instead of the careless individual or a private insurance company.
The development of compulsory auto insurance, in addition to financial responsibility, did nothing to improve the law of negligence. What had changed was the goal of insurance. Their state now demanded insurance coverage from drivers to guard the innocent traffic victim, instead of shielding a careless defendant from being successfully sued. Both provide that a driver offer minimum security to those he could injure on the highway. But, with all the runaway level of traffic accidents, the popularity of disaffection with compulsory insurance and financial responsibility as effective means of dealing with rising insurance costs and efficiently spreading benefits has grown. Cost efficiency will be the new watchword.
Reparation plans these days have within them large measures of waste, scattering resources in several directions besides back to the victim. Reform is on its way, but confining the matter to some range of fault or no-fault is insufficient. Accident law should be updated to encourage accident prevention, administrative efficiency, equitable benefit-spreading cheaply, and also the coordination of all social and personal insurance schemes.