Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1924-12-28
Regards Indemnity as Due
Traffic accident Victims
Public Opinion Declares Proper Consid'
GRAFTON for Persons Injured or Killed
Is Demanding Attention.

peared in industry as result OF ma
tion-wide acceptance OF compensa-
ton for workmen, they argue that
the fakir does not have to take
job in order to make a living at this
sort OF thing. He falls downstairs
and slips on Icy pavements, and
makes an easier living that way. He
would find compulsory auto tnsur-
ance a sure way OF getting redress,
and without the annoyance of court
procedure.
The simplicity OF the system of
compulsory auto insurance under
State fund Is what many safety ex-
perts fear most of all. They can Wis
ualize the motorist letting up on vigil
lance just because everything viii
be automatically taken care of IL he
mains some one. They can visualize
carelessness OF pedestrians on the in
crease. They can visualize civic au-
thorities, motor vehicle authorities
and safety advocates letting down
on everything that has to do with
accident prevention, just because the
! State fund Is going to take care OF
| the whole matter OF indemnity.
View of Insurance Companies.
Insurance companies say from ex-
perience that the State fund Idea Is
not practical and are particularly op-
posed to the idea that compulsory In
surance through a State fund can be
operated most economically. In this
| they are supported by known facts
regarding the amount OF money paid
by car owners to State and federal
funds, which are never returned to
| them in any direct or indirect motor
| benefit.
All but two cantons have adopted
the present Swiss regulations. over
there no person can obtain gov
| eminent license to operate car
| without taking out a third party In
surance policy. This must be for
minimum of 10000 francs for injuries
| to one person and 100000 francs for
| injuries to more than one person. In
Switzerland responsibility rests with
| the driver, not with the owner as in
| America. The driver, therefore car
ries the accident insurance policy.
But Switzerland is still in a mud
! die regarding the matter of de-
| termining responsibility, and propos-
| ed laws would swing its insurance
scheme into something on the order
| of the compensation idea being urged
| for domestic consumption. Instead of
the burden Of proof lying with the
claimant. the situation would be
changed by law to consider the driv-
err responsible for all damage done
| by his machine. So, despite the fact
that everything seems to be heading
F.! in the right direction in Switzerland,
| there are rocks ahead. The change
would be an increase in insurance
| premiums amounting to so per cent,
and Swiss motorists are opposing
! this strongly.
The situation is, therefore, gen
| orally complicated Compulsory in
surance. Investigations show. stand
a very slim chance of acceptance as
1t Is framed at present. There Is a
| definite trend toward trying to make
! accident prevention the bigger Is
sue. But in the meantime accidents
are happening, and the MANNED, and
their dependents, are being made to
suffer both physical and financial loss.
That is why the intelligent motor
ist asks. 'Tf not compulsory insurance,
then what?'
Copyright, 1924