In British Columbia our legal system for dealing with personal injury stemming from a motorist such as a car accident is called a tort system.
Tort means a breach of duty resulting in injury. The duties that can be breached are those duties set out in law. For example, failing to stop at a stop sign is a breach of duty. The remedy most often for committing a tort is paying money, also called damages. Injury isn’t necessarily physical harm. Reputation from libel could be a tort injury.
In legal language, damages means money and vice versa.
Those of us working in the legal system know that money does not fully compensate and make up the harms and losses suffered by an injured person. However, damages (i.e. money) simply tries as best as possible, to restore the person to pre-injury status. For example, if an injured person can’t work for 2 years, then part of the compensation must be lost wages at the rate earned at the time of injury for 2 years.
Some jurisdictions (i.e. a province or state or country) have moved to a no-fault system for compensation. A tort system is adversarial; the victim sues and claims money (i.e. damages) from the person who did the wrong. In a no-fault system, typically the victim does not go after the wrongdoer; instead the victim is compensated via a legislated scheme.
The no-fault system seems attractive on the surface, but in the long-run it doesn’t save money and more importantly, it doesn’t adequately compensate injured people. Also, injured people don’t get their day in court in a no-fault system.
The fact remains that people compensated less in a no-fault system. In BC, there is a no-fault workers’ compensation scheme. I do some work in that area and have seen first-hand the small compensation amounts awarded compared to compensation amounts in the car accident tort system.
It makes no sense to argue that a no-fault system is more efficient and cost-effective than a tort system. In many no-fault systems, there are several appeal mechanisms which take time and resources – both on the part of the injured person and the organization deciding cases. Each appeal is a fairly significant undertaking that costs a great deal of money. Given that most tort-based claims don’t go to trial, it’s clear a tort system is more efficient in that more resources go to compensate the injured person.
The fact that in a tort system there is final recourse in a court means that wrongdoers will pay more than most no-fault schemes provide. The court as final resort maintains the tort system and is in fact overall efficient and injured people are better compensated for their injuries.
It doesn’t bode well for injured people to have a no-fault system. This is well supported by the fact that it’s the insurance companies that want and lobby the government rigorously for no-fault systems.
Looking to learn more about personal injury lawyers, then visit Dykstra & Company’s website to find plenty of information on ICBC claims.
