It has been suggested previously that no-fault insurance would save motorists $20.00 to $30.00 in insurance premiums per year. Assuming that these figures are correct (and this is questionable given the Ontario example) are the savings not more than offset by the need to purchase private disability insurance (at a cost of hundreds of dollars per year) to protect against financial ruin should you be injured in an accident and not fully paid for your lost wages? Is $20.00 to $30.00 per year not a small price to pay for the assurance of adequate compensation?
With all its resources, the insurance industry has a very strong voice when lobbying for change. A relatively small minority of people have been seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents and, as a result, accident victims have much less influence with government and have fewer people willing to stand up for their rights. Generally, lawyers are the best, and most often the only, advocates for the rights of accident victims; but, when lawyers point out the injustices of no-fault insurance they are often accused of looking out only for their own financial interests. Unfortunately, the general public has a certain feeling of invulnerability. Unless they or a family member have been involved in a serious accident, they find it difficult to concern themselves with the rights and needs of accident victims. This is why it is very important for those who have experienced the effects of motor vehicle accidents to inform themselves and have their opinions heard. It is important that accident victims, their families, and those who deal with them on a daily basis make it clear to government that it is unacceptable to restrict the rights of accident victims any way.
To this point in time, our goal as a society has been to fairly compensate accident victims for their pain and suffering as well as their economic losses. While the tort system may be improved, whole-scale changes which would eliminate a victim’s right to claim compensation should not be considered. We must not prevent victims from receiving full compensation for their losses. To do so would be short-sighted and would not protect the long term needs of the injured.