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.
When you breach a legal duty that results in harm, you commit a tort. The person who is harmed is then entitled to a remedy - most often money. For example, driving through a red light and crashing into another car and injuring the driver of the other car is a tort.
In legal language, damages means money and vice versa.
Our personal injury legal system in British Columbia appreciates and understands that money does not adequately compensate for injuries. After all, living with pain, physical limitations, cognitive limitations, and/or psychological impairment as a result of a car accident or some other motorist incident is tragic.
Another compensation system used in North America is called a no-fault system. This type of system doesn't require a wrongdoer to pay the victim; instead the victim is compensated by their own insurer. The result is that the amount of compensation is often-times less than it would be in a tort system.
The tort versus no-fault debate continues in many jurisdictions. Generally speaking, the advantage of a tort system is there is more compensation for the victim. This means a greater cost to the public. Also, in a tort system, some people do not get adequately compensated if they fail to prove their case.
Some people claim a no-fault system is more efficient. In other words, that it saves money. The money that is saved is money not paid to injured people. The fact of the matter is that injured people receive less compensation in a no-fault system. It is not more efficient; in fact in many instances it can be less efficient because there is no court of last resort to encourage efficiency.
Just because in a tort system a hurt person can take their case to court doesn't not mean most cases go that far. Granted, trials are expensive. However, the mass majority of personal injury cases in a tort system settle before trial. In fact, it's the court of last resort that results in efficient resolution of the majority of injury claims.
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's instructive to know that insurance companies want no-fault schemes. Given that insurance companies most often pay out tort claims, it seems clear that in the end less compensation is paid out in a no-fault scheme than a tort system. Essentially, no-fault systems put the insurance companies in the driver seat; whereas the tort system puts the injured victim in the driver seat. - 31397
When you breach a legal duty that results in harm, you commit a tort. The person who is harmed is then entitled to a remedy - most often money. For example, driving through a red light and crashing into another car and injuring the driver of the other car is a tort.
In legal language, damages means money and vice versa.
Our personal injury legal system in British Columbia appreciates and understands that money does not adequately compensate for injuries. After all, living with pain, physical limitations, cognitive limitations, and/or psychological impairment as a result of a car accident or some other motorist incident is tragic.
Another compensation system used in North America is called a no-fault system. This type of system doesn't require a wrongdoer to pay the victim; instead the victim is compensated by their own insurer. The result is that the amount of compensation is often-times less than it would be in a tort system.
The tort versus no-fault debate continues in many jurisdictions. Generally speaking, the advantage of a tort system is there is more compensation for the victim. This means a greater cost to the public. Also, in a tort system, some people do not get adequately compensated if they fail to prove their case.
Some people claim a no-fault system is more efficient. In other words, that it saves money. The money that is saved is money not paid to injured people. The fact of the matter is that injured people receive less compensation in a no-fault system. It is not more efficient; in fact in many instances it can be less efficient because there is no court of last resort to encourage efficiency.
Just because in a tort system a hurt person can take their case to court doesn't not mean most cases go that far. Granted, trials are expensive. However, the mass majority of personal injury cases in a tort system settle before trial. In fact, it's the court of last resort that results in efficient resolution of the majority of injury claims.
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's instructive to know that insurance companies want no-fault schemes. Given that insurance companies most often pay out tort claims, it seems clear that in the end less compensation is paid out in a no-fault scheme than a tort system. Essentially, no-fault systems put the insurance companies in the driver seat; whereas the tort system puts the injured victim in the driver seat. - 31397
About the Author:
Looking to learn more about personal injury lawyers, then visit Dykstra & Company's website to find plenty of information on ICBC claims.
