Evening star., 1933-09-17

and provinces. Its chief provisions are
those which provide for the mandatory
suspension of the owners permits and
operators licenses of all persons found
guilty of serious violations of the motor
vehicle statutes and of all persons who
fail to satisfy final judgment Cup to
specified amounts) against them aris-
ing out of a motor vehicle accident.
The legislation definitely bars such
persons from the road until they
furnish satisfactory proof of their abil-
ity to compensate financially for any
future damages caused by them and,
in addition, in the case of suspension
arising out of failure to meet a judg-
ment. the suspension may not be lifted
until such judgment is satisfied. The
provisions operate independently and
in addition to any other penalties
which may be provided by law. Pro-
visions make the law internationally
reciprocal. so that its requirement of
suspension applies, for example, to an
Ontario motorist whether the violation
occurs in the province of Manitoba or
the State of New York. or the judgment
is that of a New Brunswick or of a
New Jersey court. The legislation aims
to provide an incentive for careful and
safe driving; to control or eliminate the
reckless and irresponsible driver; to
compel those drivers who have demon
strated their recklessness to establish
evidence of financial responsibility for
the future as prerequisite to their re-
gaining the privilege of driving. and to
furnish an incentive for payment of
otherwise ucolectible judgments arising
from motor vehicle accidents While it
is recognized that this payment Of
judgment provision does not absolutely
oJJl MT oa ,n1f Nf al
judgment, it is generally admitted that
the prospect of permanent expulsion
from the road is such a compelling
alternative that it inevitably tends to
secure payment of judgments and to
| reduce unpaid judgments to a mini
mum.
Amendments Drafted.
The new financial responsibility
legislation adopted by Manitoba. On
tario and Prince Edward Island was re-
ported to the Insurance Superintend
ents' Conference held in Edmonton,
Alberta, in September. $780, and
Sreclal committee was appointed to
drafe such amendments to the pro-
yincial insurance laws as seem desr-
able and necessary in view of the enact
ment of financial responsibility legis-
lation in the three provinces At
that stage the thought was that few
amendments to the existing statutes
would suffice and that such amend
ments could be prepared agreed upon
by correspondence. and adopted at the
ensuing sessions of the several Legis-
latures. The special committee made
an interim report. wherein a draft bill
was embodied, in December. 1880, and
1t was at once circulated among in
Surance underwriters and counsel for
comment and criticism The result of
this distribution led to a decision to
postpone recommending any amend
mentS for another year When the
subject came before the 1881 Insurance
Superintendents Conference. held in
Winnipeg in September, it was agreed
that there should be a general revision
of the existing statutes because of the
numerous important changes which
were essential and of the additional
changes which were necessary if ad-
vantage were to be taken of the eX-
perience and developments of the past.
An important change in the A. A.
A. bill was recommended by Justice
Hodgins. adopted first in the Ontario
legislation. subsequently in other prov
lnceS. as result of the new automo-
bile insurance statutes. and today ap-
proved by the American Automobile
Association. The original bill COR
templated the amendment of the State
motor vehicle statutes only and under
took to dictate exclusively important
changes in the terms and conditions of
motor vehicle liability policies offered
in proof of financial responsibility there
under. 1t was not originally intended
that this new form of policy should be
used to the exclusion of the old form
of standard policy, with its numerous
limitations upon the liability Of the in
Surer. Nevertheless. when the A. A.
A. bill was adopted by the State of
New York in 1930) and some other
important States. the associated insur-
ance companies concluded for numer-
Gus reasons that it was undesirable to
attempt to sell two forms of policy. one
providing restricted coverage and an
other the wide form of coverage re-
CURED as evidence of financial respon-
sibiiity. The prospect of putting the
victim of motor vehicle accident upon
INQUIRY as to whether or not he had
been fortunate enough to be injured
by motorist who had been required
to prove his financial responsibility, and
had form of policy providing the
broad coverage required by the new
legislation. was not inviting to the COM
panies because it was calculated to
create misunderstanding and to bring
the business Of insurance into disrepute
Moreover. 1 believe the casualty insur-
ance companies felt they owed an
obligation to contribute something to
the tremendous social and economic
problem created by the increasing toll
of motor vehicle accidents, and that
they felt it was in accordance with the
spirit Of the times for them SO to write
their policies that the innocent victim
OF the negligence of any insured mo-
tCrlSt should be able to collect compen-
sation at least up to the limits of his
insurance policy.
Alters Draft of Eill
When this situation and these opin-
ions were disclosed to Justice Hodgins
in the course of his inquiry and the
possibility made clear to him that while
the majority of insurance companies
might take this businesslike and hu-
name view. the original A. A. A. bill so
drafted would rot require all companies
to do so. he altered his draft bill SO as
to make its insurance provisions apply
tc every motor vehicle liability policy
anG not merely to such policies filed as
proof of financial responsibility under
the hlghWay trafhc act. In the result
We had the almost unforeseen develop
ment that, whereas the Ontario insur-
ance act prescribed certain statutory
conditions for automobile insurance
policies which detailed numerous cir
The statutory conditions. the insurer
could not be held liable, the new finan-
ciai responsibility provisions embodied
in the Ontario highway traffic act pro-
viGed that. Notwithstanding the provi-
sions of the insurance act including
the statutory conditions. the insurer
should be liable in effect under all such
circumstances to third-party claimants.
Thus. although the enactment of the
original A. A. A. bill by Canadian
province. detailing the terms and pro-
visions of a certain special type of
policy only. l. e., that acceptable as
proof of financial responsibility, would
not have necessarily involved any change