Conclusion
All legal systems started to deal with traffic accidents by using liability for fault. But lawyers quickly realised that victims would find it difficult to get compensation if they had to prove fault. There are at least four kinds of change shown in the laws the project has studied.
- The smallest change was to keep liability for fault, but to make the railway company or the keeper of the car liable, rather than the driver of the train or car, who was the person responsible. Sweden and Germany already made this change before 1910.
- Next, the idea that railway companies and car drivers were only liable to pay compensation when they were at fault was kept, but then the burden of proof was reversed. In this way, it would be for the railway company or keeper of the car to show that it was not at fault, rather than making the victim bring the evidence to show that they were at fault. The benefit of doubt was given to the victim. This was the approach of Sweden in 1916, Italy in 1942 and Spain in 1943.
- Some systems, such as Germany and France, moved away from liability for fault and established liability without fault for the harm caused by a train or car, as a risk-creating thing.
- Some systems, such as Sweden moved to create an insurance-based compensation system, where the victim can recover simply where she is injured.
Not every system has made each of these changes. English law, formally at least, has not changed. Countries have decided how best to improve compensation for victims of traffic accidents. In some situations, this is best done by changing private law. In other situations by introducing a new legal scheme of compensation. In the English case, heavy reliance has been placed on private insurance.
