For instance, the full fault may lie with the vehicle driver and none with the injured person (or the other way around); or the two can be at fault, but with the driver much more than the victim (or the opposite way round); or the mistake may be about identical on both equally sides. . Get cheapest amax car insurance online.

Certainly there are a lot of who would think of all victims deserving of financial relief irrespective of the fault-innocence combination. There are others so dissatisfied with the delays, costs, inherent in the administration of negligence law that they would be imposing on all motorists an absolute liability toward injured persons without regard to mistake.

It ought to be regarded, also, that injuries can occur in the absence of any responsibility, or when no reason for action is granted by law, or when the question of fault is snarled beyond unraveling.

But the fact is that we still try to fix responsibility and allocate the costs of automobile accidents according to mistake theory and will continue to do so for years to come. In spite of repeated attacks upon it and the two statutory and judicial modifications in it, mistake theory endures in the legislative mind as a matter of sound public policy.

Let the wrongdoer suffer for his errors that he may be a deterrent to others and in the future mend his ways. In a democratic society, they claim, there is an obligation on all individuals to exercise due care in all their actions. To remove this obligation, to disregard negligence or condone it, whether in the vehicle driver or in his victim, would have side effects on car security and automotive accident frequency.

The courts are concerned not only with compensation of the victim, but with admonition of the wrongdoer. It is customary to equate the vehicles incident challenge with the uninsured driver problem. While this may be justified for logical reasons, the two concepts are not the exact same.

Even if all drivers were insured, a possibility the realization of which has not yet been demonstrated, the previous problem (as defined above) would remain. The number of not compensated victims would be diminished, to be sure. Even so the existence of liability insurance policies are not alone a guaranty of immediate and adequate settlement.

When suit is necessary, the injured person must find and hire competent legal services, must institute a civil action, must produce witnesses and marshal evidence, must wage a skillful legal contest before a fickle jury. There will be delays, postponements, appeals, expenses, time and trouble, and other discouragements. The issue is in doubt and the net results uncertain. Even if the victim wins, the defendant’s limits of insurance may prove to be inadequate or his contract may be voided by some breach of its conditions. When recovery is finally obtained, the plaintiff’s counsel may take a third of it as his fee.

It is not to be wondered at, then, that many victims are unable or unwilling to begin suit and that others, who do, falter or succumb along the way. It is one thing to acknowledge wrong doing theory as a basis for compensation; it is quite another to ignore its defects in practice.

amax auto insurance