The introduction of the 1971 legislation did not end discussion a good even more extensive no-fault for vehicle insurance Ontario. Indeed, in those days an insurance industry spokesman was quoted as saying that it was viewed as merely a initial step. Find auto insurance in California at www.caautoinsurancequotes.net.
The following important development was the publication in 1973 of the report through the Ontario Law Reform Commission on motor vehicle accident compensation. The empirical base for the report was information gathered in other studies; the Osgoode Hall study, a University of Michigan study, the British Columbia Royal Commission on Automobile Insurance and an Oxford University study.
The findings from the Osgoode Halls study happen to be described previously. In broad terms these confirmed or were confirmed by the other studies. Compensation flowing from the tort system was shown to be inadequate, poorly distributed and subject often to serious delay. Further, noting the widespread utilization of insurance, what the law states Reform Commission pointed out that loss distribution, instead of loss shifting, had become the “normal method” of compensating accident victims and therefore:
The issue no longer is whether individual defendants can afford to bear all the losses they inflict, but if the collectivity engaged in the activity which generates the injury, and in the situation of motoring this virtually means society at large, are able to afford to deal with it. In light of the huge amounts allocated to motoring already, an adverse answer would appear perverse.
That society had chosen to spread losses (through the widespread use and legal encouragement of liability insurance) instead of saddle individual wrongdoers together, resulted in the historical purpose of tort law (to make blameworthy individuals liable) was no longer being pursued. This, together with the fact that those facets of tort this was retained led to inequities, inadequacies and delays in the processing of’ claims, fueled the argument for that complete abolition of tort as it put on automobile accident cases. Learn more about California here
What the law states Reform Commission indicated a definite preference for any first-party, no-fault compensation system. It proposed a “pure” no- fault plan which would compensate car accident victims for those pecuniary losses resulting from injury, death or damage to property arising from the operation of an automobile. Non-pecuniary loss would not be compensated, but other losses, specifically (a) unlimited medical, hospital and rehabilitation expenses, (b) other consequential expenses such as transportation costs and telephone bills, (c) damages, (d) death benefits, and (e) compensation for collision and damage to property, would be compensated.