BASIC PROTECTION FOR THE TRAFFIC VICTIM:

By Robert E. Keeton and Jeffrey O'Connell '5l. Boston:Little, Brown and Co., 1965. 624 pp$13.50.

In this brief book review and within the time available, justice cannot be done to this important book. As a practicing lawyer who is not overly enamored of the present system of adjusting automobile insurance claims, I was tremendously impressed with this important piece of legal research. The research alone is worth the price of the book.

The authors propose a new form of basic motor vehicle insurance. For claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents in which damages for pain and suffering do not exceed $5,000 and economic damages (chiefly medical and hospital bills and wage losses) do not exceed $10,000, there would be automatic insurance coverage without having to prove negligence on the part of anyone. Claims would be paid periodically, as the actual bills were incurred, or as wages were actually lost. Other insurance would be taken into account, to avoid double payment. Disputes within the framework of basic coverage would be determined by the trial judge, without a jury trial. The new basic insurance would be compulsory for all motorists.

For claims in excess of basic coverage, the injured person might bring a tort claim in court, as now, but the defendant would be entitled to a deduction against any liability equal to the amount of basic coverage, which basic coverage the plaintiff would "be entitled to have recourse to, in any event.

The above description is an over-simplification, and the plan has many other fea- tures which cannot be treated in the space available. It seems to me that, on small claims within the limits of the basic coverage, the claimant may well end up by obtaining a smaller gross recovery than under the present system, in return for the certainty of recovery, less delay and less cost of recovery, to such an extent that he may well end up with greater net recovery.

From a procedural or "due process" standpoint, the plan seems workable. It will be interesting to have an evaluation of the proposal by the casualty insurance industry. It will also be interesting to have an independent, actuarial estimate of the premium cost of such basic insurance. If such evaluations and estimates have been made, they are not yet available to me.

With the rising costs of present kinds of automobile insurance, the increasing number of accidents and claims, and the longer delays in settling claims whether voluntarily or in court, history is working on the side of the authors. For example, in the field of industrial accidents, the transition from the common law master-and-servant cases to a system of workmen's compensation is now complete.

At the risk of becoming a "heretic" in the eyes of some of my professional confreres, I predict that the eventual adoption of some such plan is inevitable. Which State will be the first to try the experiment?

Attorney-at-law