Court Opinion

ID: 9754030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:39:12.388881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:46.821475
License: Public Domain

Weintraub, C. J.,
(concurring). I join in the opinion of the Court but add a word with respect to the constitutional issues. Having decided that there should be financial security with respect to motor vehicle accidents, the Legislature gave the motorists a choice between furnishing that security before or after the happening of an accident. It is compatible with due process to require security in advance of the accident, and of course without regard to a probability of future fault. If the Legislature may thus require security in advance of the occurrence, I see no difficulty, under either the due process clause or the equal protection clause, in the circumstance that the Legislature permitted all motorists to choose to post the security before or after the happening of the event. Thus viewed, a failure to provide for an inquiry as to liability with respect to the motorist who elected to post the security after an accident is not arbitrary or invidious. To the contrary, the statute deals with an even hand with all motorists, to achieve security in advance of a determination as to fault. I do not quarrel with an interpretation of the statute which calls for an administrative hearing in which the critical consideration will be the absence of a possibility of fault, but I have no doubt the Legislature need not provide for that inquiry.
For remandment — Chief Justice Weiittkatjb and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Pkoctob, Hall, Sohettino and Hane-man — 7.
Opposed — None.