While I was in court last week, I received a voice mail from an old friend. His daughter had been rear-ended on the expressway. My friend was out of town on business, and left a message that I should call his wife. The kid rear ended his daughter. "That ain't right."
My friend makes a very good living and has senior position in a large corporation. The "ain't" in the message was merely an affectation, meant to convey that he/I would make sure that "right" prevailed. A Republican, tort reform advocate, pro Chamber of Commerce guy, he has not let my questionable choice of profession get in the way of our friendship.
Like many pro-business, tort reformers, tort reform looks real good--all the way up till the time they, or a family member, are affected. I did not look forward to explaining the Michigan No-Fault system to my friend's wife, but felt fortunate that I didn't have to explain it first to the husband/father.
The young lady was hurt in the accident, went to the emergency room, had various tests including a CT of the head and had been released, with directions to follow up with her family doctor. She had been throwing up since her release, probably due to a medication reaction.
Her truck had been insured, but as it was old, the collision coverage had been removed some time before the accident. Her No-Fault carrier had already informed her that the most she could recover from the negligent driver, for her $2500 truck, was $500. I explained the reasoning behind the No-Fault system, which allows for medical expenses, lost wages etc., without the requirement that fault for the accident be litigated first. I also explained why people removed expensive collision coverage from old cars, as the payoff at blue book rates, did not justify the expense. I explained that the No-Fault system reduced litigation etc.
The wife seemed to understand, but I could envision my friend's reaction when she told him. "That ain't right," he would say. The kid who hit his daughter was wrong, and admitted it. His daughter did nothing wrong. She was out a car. And, if the kid had collision coverage, he probably wasn't. What kind of attorney was Butler, if he couldn't see that right prevailed. Yeah, Butler, change 35 years of law, and call me when my daughter's check for $2500 comes in.
Well, the practical advantages of tort reform, no-fault insurance, and fewer tort claims are sometimes harder to appreciate when itsadvocates become victims of someone else's negligence. I never heard back from my friend. I called later in the week to see how the young lady was doing. My message has not been returned. Thank goodness, as I have not had to explain the serious impairment threshold to him--yet.
Comments