Evening star., 1952-09-20
Worth Discussing, ANYHOW

interesting but controversial is the proposal
which District officials are considering in con-
nection with the problem Of what to do about
financially irresponsible automobile drivers. The
plan now being described to local groups by
1ramc Director George Keneipp is similar to
one which New Jersey recently adopted and
which North Dakota also is trying out The heart
of the plan is a so-called "unsatisfied judgments
1und," to which all motorists would be required
TO contribute small sum and from which the
victim OF an unpaid judgment could collect at
least part OF his loss. There are advantages and
disadvantages to the scheme.
The "unsatiS1ed judgments fund" was
adopted by the two States in lieu of a compul-
sorry liability insurance law Of the type that is in
effect in Massachusetts,. The Massachusetts, law
has been under fire for several years on the
grounds that it has been abused by claim-con-
sciouS citizens and otherwise has not met ex-
pectationS Efforts to repeal the Massachusetts,
law have proved unsuccessful, but the contro-
versy over its effectiveness has discouraged
similar legislation elsewhere. Instead, SO States
have adopted financial responsibility" laws
generally resembling those in Maryland and
Virginia. This sort Of legislation requires both
parties to serious traffic accident to file reports
with the State motor vehicle authorities and, If
liability insurance is not carried, to post security
or cash to insure payment Of any judgment
which might arise. Failure to establish financial
responsibility results in suspension Of driving
privileges until the obligation is met.
Traffic Director Keneipp some time ago
recommended that the District amend its present
inadequate "driver-responsibility" law to con-
form with the plan prevailing in the 80 States.
Under existing law, local driver who fails to
satisfy traffic accident judgment may be de-
prived Of his license tags and permit until he does
kaIa Ae %Iaak
the driver who was at fault is "judgment-proof"
prefer not to 60 to the trouble and expense Of
filing suit. The irresponsible driver thus retains
his driving privileges and is inclined to let his
responsibility have free. rein. -
The plan which Mr.. Keneipp and the Cor
poration Counsel's ohlce have been studying
would give protection to the victim and deprive
the irresponsible driver Of his privileges at the
same time BY assessing all drivers SO cents or
dollar, a fund would be built up for the payment
of judgments in cases where the defendants
were in default. Since the victim of an accident
would be assured of payment, whether or not
the offender were insured, an incentive for suit
would be established And If the defendant
failed to meet the judgment, the law would
authorize the traffic director to take away his
driving privileges until he reimbursed the fund.
Among disadvantages Of the plan is the fact
that today's motorists would, in effect, be tapped
to build up fund which, once it was established,
other motorists would benefit from without con-
tributing to. Furthermore, out-of-town drivers
who did not contribute also might benefit from
the plan. reciprocity arrangement would be
possible, Of course, If all other jurisdictions
adopted the idea.
Other benefits and drawbacks to the plan
will be discussed at series Of conferences among
ofacials and between them and civic bodies.
Whether these discussions result in adoption OF
the "unsatisfed judgments fund" or not, the
attention focused on the difficult problem Of
the financially irresponsible driver might lead
to some more effective solution than is offered
by the present law. That will be gain for the.
motorist who recognizes and meets his respon-s
sibilities as the operator OF potentially danger
nus Ynacfina :ss.@ q