•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 24 > Issue 6 (1926)

 

Abstract

The problem of protecting the public from injuries arising from the use of automobiles upon public highways has recently been subjected to a form of legislative solution that is distinctly different from the earlier attempts. The devices first employed were measures which dealt with the licensing of cars and with the regulation of their use. Later, when the need for giving financial substance to the tort liabilities of motorists appeared, steps were taken in the direction of fixing vicarious liabilities upon the owners of automobiles. This was done to some extent by the courts which announced the "family purpose doctrine," and also by legislative enactments. This plan of extending liability, however, has not fully accomplished its purpose of finding for the injured person a defendant who is capable of redressing the injuries which have been sustained. The current mode shows a departure from these devices in favor of plans which will require the owner to supply assets out of which judgments against him may be satisfied. It is attempted to do this by requiring that an applicant for a license shall either show a property qualification, supply securities, or furnish a bond for the discharge of judgment debts arising from the use of his automobile, or that he insure himself against certain liabilities. The legislatures of both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have submitted drafts of statutes which have been proposed to attain this end to their respective courts for advisory opinions as to their probable validity if enacted. Both courts expressed favorable opinions as to the constitutionality of the most material provisions of these proposed acts, and the validity of details not vitally important to the principal purpose was alone questioned.

Download

Share

COinS