A Review Article on Basic Protection for the Traffic Victim: Comment

Abstract

Professor H. Laurence Ross in his review article on Protection for the Traffic Victim puts forth a broad brush appraisal of a veiy controversial and complex proposal.' While recoignizing the limitations of time and space that faced Professor Ross, one is compelled to point up some basic problems or weaknesses that the Keeton and O'Connell work embodies, which have either been ignored or overlooked by Professor Ross. The problems or weaknesses to be discussed involve methodological inconsistencies, the soundness of the empirical base, and the rationale on which Basic Protection appears to be founded. Possibly the greatest weakness of the Keeton and O'Connell text lies in its fundamental assumption as spelled out by Professor Ross: . . that the major purpose of the [present claims administration] system ought to be to compensate victims without regard to fault . . 2 Beginning with this objective, Professors Keeton and O'Connell must find the present system deficient and their proposal superior. The objective of the present system is to allocate compensation according to the responsibility of the parties involved. It is the specific intent of the tort law to compensate fully some accident claimants and not compensate others.