AUTOMOBILES

AUTOMOBILES

No invention has so transformed the landscape of the United States as the automobile, and no other country has so thoroughly adopted the
automobile as its favorite means of transporta-
tion. Automobiles are used both for pleasure
and for commerce and are typically the most
valuable type of PERSONAL PROPERTY owned by
U.S. citizens. Because autos are expensive to
acquire and maintain, heavily taxed, favorite tar-
gets of thieves, a major cause of air and noise
POLLUTION, and capable of causing tremendous
personal injuries and property damage, the body
of law surrounding them is quite large. Automo-
bile law covers the four general phases in the life
cycle of an automobile: its manufacture, sale,
operation, and disposal.
Brief History of the Automobile
The first automobile powered by an internal
combustion engine was invented and designed
in Germany during the 1880s. In 1903, Henry
Ford founded the Ford Motor Company and
started an era of U.S. leadership in auto produc-
tion that lasted for most of the twentieth cen-
tury. In 1908, Ford introduced the highly
popular Model T,which by 1913 was being man-
ufactured through assembly line techniques.
Innovations by Ford, General Motors, and other
manufacturers near Detroit, Michigan, made
that city the manufacturing center for the U.S.
car industry. By the 1920s, General Motors had
become the world’s largest auto manufacturer, a
distinction it still held into 2004. Over time, the
auto industry in all countries became increas-
ingly concentrated in the hands of a few compa-
nies, and by 1939, the Big Three—Ford, General
Motors, and DaimlerChrysler—had 90 percent
of the U.S. market. As of 2003, Ford is the
world’s second-largest auto manufacturer after
General Motors Corporation.
In 1929, there were roughly 5 million autos
in the United States. All those cars required an
infrastructure of roads, and by the end of
WORLD WAR II, the federal government had
begun aggressively to fund highway develop-
ment. With the intention of improving the
nation’s ability to defend itself, Congress passed
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 (58 Stat.
838). It authorized construction of a system of
multiple-lane, limited-access freeways, officially
called the National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways, designed to connect 90 per-
cent of all U.S. cities of 50,000 or more people.
In 1956, the Federal-Aid Highway Act (23
U.S.C.A. § 103 [West 1995]) established the Fed-
eral Highway Trust Fund, which as of the early
2000s continued to provide 90 percent of the financing for interstate highways. By 1990, the interstate highway system was 99.2 percent complete
and had cost $125 billion.
During the 1970s, the U.S. auto industry
began to lose ground to Japanese and European
automakers, and U.S. citizens relied to an
increasing degree on imported autos. Japan, for
example, surpassed the United States in auto
production in the 1970s. Oil shortages and
embargoes during the 1970s caused the price of
gasoline to rise and put a premium on smaller
autos, most of which were produced by foreign
companies. Foreign cars also earned a reputation
for higher quality during this period. The
share of foreign cars in the U.S. market rose
from 7.6 percent in 1960 to 24.9 percent in 1984.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. auto companies
were suffering greatly, and the U.S. government
bailed out the nearly bankrupt Chrysler Corporation.
The U.S. government also negotiated a
quota system with Japan that called for limits on
Japanese autos imported into the United States,
thereby raising the prices of Japanese cars. By
the 1990s, the U.S. auto companies had regained
much of the ground lost to foreign companies.
In the mid-1990s, however, international manufacturing
agreements meant that few cars, U.S.
or foreign, were made entirely in one country.
Manufacture
Throughout the twentieth century, automakers
were required to conform to ever stricter standards regarding the manufacture of their
vehicles. These rules were designed to improve
the safety, fuel consumption, and emissions of
the auto.
Safety Standards As autos increased in
number and became larger and faster, and people
traveled more miles a year in them, the number
of motor vehicle deaths and injuries rose. By
1965, some 50,000 people were being killed in
motor vehicle accidents every year, making automobiles
the leading cause of accidental death for
all age groups and the overall leading cause of
death for the population below age 44. Between
1945 and 1995, 2 million people died and about
200 million were injured in auto accidents—
many more than were wounded and injured in
all the wars in the nation’s history combined.
Beginning in the 1960s, consumer and automobile
safety advocates began to press for federal
safety standards for the manufacture of
automobiles that would reduce such harrowing
statistics. The most famous of these advocates
was RALPH NADER, who published a 1965 book
on the deficiencies of auto safety, called Unsafe
at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the
American Automobile. From 1965 to 1995, more
than 50 safety standards were imposed on vehicle
manufacturers, regulating the construction
of windshields, safety belts, head restraints,
brakes, tires, lighting, door strength, roof
strength, and bumper strength.
In 1966, Congress passed the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1381
note, 1391 et seq. [1995]), which established a
new federal regulatory agency, the National
Highway Safety Bureau, later renamed the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). NHTSA was given a mandate to
establish and enforce rules that would force
manufacturers to build vehicles that could better
avoid and withstand accidents. It was also given
the power to require manufacturers to recall and
repair defects in their motor vehicles and the
authority to coordinate state programs aimed at
improving driver behavior. Also in 1966, Congress
passed the Highway Safety Act (23 U.S.C.A.
§§ 105, 303 note, et seq. [1995]), which provided
for federal guidance and funding to states for the
creation of highway safety programs.
As a result of these new laws, 19 federal safety
regulations came into effect on January 1, 1968.
The regulations specified accident avoidance
standards governing such vehicle features as
brakes, tires, windshields, lights, and transmission
controls. They also mandated more costly
crash-protection standards. These included
occupant-protection requirements for SEAT
BELTS, energy-absorbing steering wheels and
bumpers, head restraints, padded instrument
panels, and stronger side doors. These auto safety
standards significantly reduced traffic fatalities.
Between 1968 and 1979, the annual motor vehicle
death rate decreased 35.2 percent, from 5.4 to
3.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles.
The seat belt requirement is usually considered
the most important and effective safety
standard. According to one study, seat belts that
attach across both the lap and the shoulder
reduce the probability of serious injury in an
accident by 64 percent and of fatalities by 32 percent
for front-seat occupants. However, because
people do not always use restraints that require
their active participation, autos began to be
required to have passive restraint systems such as
automatic seat belts and air bags. Air bags pop
out instantly in a crash and form a cushion that
prevents the occupants from hitting the windshield
or dashboard. These devices can substantially
reduce the motor vehicle death rate. Cars
made after 1990 must have either automatic seat
belts or air bags, for front-seat occupants.
However, many auto safety experts point out
that regulations on the manufacture of automobiles
can only go so far in reducing injuries.
Studies indicate that only 13 percent of auto
accidents result from mechanical failure, and of
those that do, most are caused by poor maintenance,
not inadequate design or construction.
Other analysts assert that safety regulations
cause a phenomenon known as offsetting
behavior. According to this theory, people will drive more dangerously because they know their
risk of injury is lower, putting themselves, their
passengers, and other drivers, passengers, and
pedestrians at greater risk and thereby offsetting
the gain in safety caused by stricter manufacturing
standards.
The NHTSA may also authorize recalls of
cars on the road that it deems are safety hazards.
In a recall, the federal government mandates
that a manufacturer must repair all the vehicles
that it has made that have a specific problem.
Between 1976 and 1980, the NHTSA authorized
the recall of over 39 million vehicles. Recall is a
controversial policy. One problem with it is that,
typically, only 50 percent of auto owners
respond to recall notices.
Emissions Standards Emissions standards
are intended to reduce the amount of pollution
coming from a car’s exhaust system. Autos are
major contributors to AIR POLLUTION. Some
cities, such as Los Angeles, have notorious problems
with smog, a situation that can cause serious health problems for those with respiratory
problems such as asthma and bronchitis. Air
pollution also damages plants, reduces crop
yields, lowers visibility, and causes acid rain. In
1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act
Amendments (Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat.
1676–1713 [42 U.S.C.A. § 7403 et seq. (1995)]),
which set an ambitious goal of eliminating, by
1975, 90 to 95 percent of the emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of
nitrogen as measured in 1968 automobiles.
Manufacturers did not meet the target date for
achieving this goal, and the deadline was
extended. Also, the new emissions standards
caused problems because they reduced fuel
economy and vehicle performance.
Congress modified emissions standards in
the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments (42
U.S.C.A. § 7401 et seq.) and in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104
Stat. 2399 [42 U.S.C.A. § 7401 et seq. (1995)]).
The modified standards, as defined and monitored by the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (EPA), included new requirements for
states with low air quality to implement inspection
and maintenance programs for all cars.
These inspections were designed to ensure that
vehicle emissions systems were working properly.
In 1992, the EPA implemented strict emissions
testing requirements for 18 states and 33
cities with excessive levels of carbon monoxide
and ozone.
California has been a leader in setting air
quality standards. In 1989, it announced new
guidelines that called for the phasing out of gasfueled
cars in southern California by the year
2010.
Critics maintain that federal emissions regulations
have been too costly and that regulators
should focus on reducing the emissions of more
significant polluters, such as power plants and
factories.
Fuel Efficiency Standards In the 1975
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L.No.
94-163, 89 Stat. 871 [codified as amended in
scattered sections of 12 U.S.C.A., 15 U.S.C.A.,
and 42 U.S.C.A.]), Congress created a set of corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards
for new cars manufactured in the United States.
The secretary of transportation was empowered
with overseeing these standards. The standards
mandated that each car manufacturer achieve an
average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon
(mpg) for its entire fleet of cars by 1985. Manufacturers
that did not achieve these standards
were to be fined. In 1980, an additional sales tax
at purchase was placed upon “gas guzzlers” (cars
that fail to achieve certain levels of fuel economy).
The more a car’s gas mileage is below a set
standard—which was 22.5 mpg in 1986—the
greater the tax. For example, a 1986 car that
achieved less than 12.5 mpg was charged an
additional sales tax of $3,850. Some members of
Congress have lobbied for fuel efficiency standards
as high as a 40 mpg fleet average for auto
manufacturers.
The fleet-average fuel efficiency of cars
nearly doubled between 1973 and 1984. However,
detractors of fuel efficiency standards
maintain that the increase in efficiency was not
entirely due to federal standards. They argue
that fuel efficiency would have risen without
regulation, in response to higher gas prices and
consumer demand for more efficient cars.
Import Quotas Faced with increasingly stiff
competition from Japan and Europe, U.S. car
manufacturers in the early 1980s pressed the
federal government to limit the number of foreign
cars imported into the United States. The
administration of President RONALD REAGAN
responded by negotiating quotas, or limits, on
Japanese car imports from 1981 to 1985. The
Japanese voluntarily continued quotas on their
car exports through the late 1980s, and quotas
on pickup trucks from Japan remained in effect
through the mid-1990s.
Tort Law and Automobile Manufacturing
Courts have established that manufacturers may
be held liable and sued for property damage and
personal suffering caused by the products they
have manufactured. Automobile manufacturers,
like all manufacturers, are thus subject to PRODUCT
LIABILITY LAW. Anyone who suffers harm,
injury, or property damage from an improperly
made auto may sue for damages. Actions that
involve a breach of the manufacturer’s responsibility
to provide a reasonably safe vehicle are
called TORTS.
Courts have found that auto manufacturers
have a duty to reasonably design their vehicle
against foreseeable accidents. The most important
legal concept in this area is crashworthiness
—a manufacturer’s responsibility to make the
car reasonably safe in the event of a crash. The
standard of crashworthiness makes it possible
to hold manufacturers liable for a defect that
causes or enhances injuries suffered in a crash,
even if that defect did not cause the crash itself.
Auto injuries are often the result of a “second
collision,” when the occupant’s body strikes the
interior of the car or strikes an exterior object
after being thrown from the vehicle. Second collisions
can occur when the seat belt fails, for
example. Other examples of failures in crashworthiness
include instruments that protrude
on a dashboard or a fuel tank that explodes after
impact. A landmark case in this area of manufacturer
liability is Larsen v. General Motors
Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968), in which an
individual was compensated for injuries suffered
when his head struck a steering wheel
in an accident. In another significant case,
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. Ct.
3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348 (1981), a California
jury required Ford Motor Company to pay $125
million in PUNITIVE DAMAGES (later lowered to
$3.5 million) to a teenager who was severely
burned in a fire that resulted when his Ford
Pinto was rear-ended and the fuel tank
exploded.

Automakers may also be held liable for failure
to warn of a product’s dangerous tendencies.
Manufacturers have, for example, been sued for
failing to warn drivers that certain vehicles had a
tendency to roll over in some conditions.
One of the more high-profile cases involving
defects in automobiles and their parts involved
Ford Motor Company and the tire manufacturer
Bridgestone/Firestone. On May 2, 2000, the
NHTSA began an investigation involving Firestone
tires. By that time, the agency had received
90 complaints from consumers who had suffered
accidents because the tread on the tires of
their Ford Explorers had allegedly caused their
vehicles to roll over. These accidents had resulted
in at least 27 injuries and four deaths. On August
9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone announced the
recall of 6.5 million tires, many of which were
standard equipment on Explorers.
Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone eventually
faced more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal
court. Many of these cases were settled,
including several cases that had been followed
closely by the national media. In one case,
Marisa Rodriguez of Texas suffered permanent
paralysis in 1998 when a faulty tire in the Ford
Explorer in which she was riding caused the
vehicle to roll over. Rodriguez sought damages
of $1 billion when she brought suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, though she eventually settled the case for
a reported $6 million.
By 2002, the total number of fatalities had
increased to more than 271, with more than
1,000 injuries. By February 2003, several CLASS
ACTION and other suits were pending against
Bridgestone/Firestone. In 2001, Congress conducted
a series of hearings investigating the Ford
and Bridgestone/Firestone fiasco. Congress
eventually enacted the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
Act, Pub. L. No. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 (49
U.S.C.A. §§ 30101 et seq.). It provides criminal
penalties for misleading the Secretary of Transportation
with respect to vehicle and equipment-
related safety defects. Although the
provisions of the statute do not apply to the
Firestone/Ford cases.
Sale, Lease, and Rental
When shopping for a car, consumers generally
receive their first information through
advertising. States regulate automobile ads in
different ways. In some states, an ad must state
the number of advertised vehicles available for
sale, the price, the dealer, and the factoryinstalled
options and WARRANTY terms. Car
buyers should beware of bait-and-switch advertising,
in which a dealer advertises a specific car
for sale without the intention of actually selling
it. The ad lures the customer into the showroom
so that she or he may be persuaded to buy a
higher-priced, unadvertised vehicle. When buyers
encounter this type of FRAUD, or any other
type of CONSUMER FRAUD, they should contact
the CONSUMER PROTECTION division of their
state attorney general’s office.
The STATUTE OF FRAUDS of the UNIFORM
COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) governs the sale of
autos in every state except Louisiana. According
to the UCC, an auto contract must be in writing
in order to be considered valid in court. The
purchaser and an agent of the seller—an authorized
salesperson, supervisor, or manager— must
sign the contract. Buyers should read all terms of
the contract before signing. The contract should
specify whether the car is new or used and
include a description of the car, the car’s vehicle identification number (VIN) (on the driver’s
side of the dashboard near the window), details
of any trade-in, and the terms of financing,
including the annual percentage rate.
In most states, the title for a new or used car
passes to the buyer when the seller endorses the
certificate of title. If the buyer does not maintain
payments according to the finance agreement,
the creditor can repossess the car as collateral for
the loan. The debtor has the right to buy back
the car (redeem the collateral) and can do so by
paying the entire balance due plus repossession
costs. Eventually, the creditor may sell the car to
another party. If the profit from the sale does
not satisfy the debt, the debtor is liable for the
difference. If the profit from the sale is greater
than the debt, the creditor must pay the difference
to the debtor. In some states, the creditor is
required by the UCC to notify the debtor of the
time, place, and manner of any sale of the car.
All used-car dealers must attach a buyer’s
guide to the side window of any car they are selling.
It must state whether the car comes with a
warranty; outline the specific coverage of any
warranty; recommend that an independent
mechanic inspect the car; state that all promises
should be put in writing; and provide a list of
potential problems with the car. The buyer’s
guide becomes part of any contract with the
seller. The seller must be truthful about the car
and should provide the buyer with the car’s
complete service records and a signed, written
statement of the odometer reading and its accuracy.
If the car does not perform as promised, a
breach of warranty may have occurred. If an
individual pays more than $500 for a used car,
he or she should have a written contract and a
bill of sale. The latter is required in many states
to register a car and should include the date of
sale; the year, make, and model of the car; the
VIN; the odometer reading; the amount paid for
the car and what form it took; the buyer’s and
seller’s names, addresses, and phone numbers;
and the seller’s signature.
The sale of new automobiles is subject to
what are popularly called LEMON LAWS. Lemon is
the slang term for a car that just does not work
right. Lemon laws, in force in all states as of
2003, entitle a car buyer to a replacement car or
a refund if the purchased car cannot be satisfactorily
repaired by the dealer. States vary in their
requirements for determining whether a car is a
lemon.Most define a lemon as a vehicle that has
been taken in at least four times for the same
repair or is out of service for a total of 30 days
during the coverage period. The coverage period
is usually one year from delivery or the duration
of the written warranty, whichever is shorter.
The owner must keep careful records of repairs
and submit a written notice to the manufacturer
stating the problems with the car and an intention
to declare it unfit for use. Many states
require that the buyer and the manufacturer or
dealer submit to private ARBITRATION, a system
of negotiating differences out of court. Increasingly,
states are passing lemon laws for used as
well as new cars.
A popular method of purchasing the use of
a car is leasing. Leasing is essentially long-term
rental. For persons who drive few miles a year,
like to change cars often, or use their cars for
business, leasing is an attractive option. A lease
contract may or may not include other expenses
such as sales tax, license fee, and insurance. In a
closed-end, or “walkaway,” lease contract, the car
is returned at the end of the contract period and
the lessee is free to “walk away” regardless of the
value of the car. In an open-end lease, the lessee
gambles that the car will be worth a stated price
at the end of the lease. If the car is worth more
than that price, the lessee may owe nothing or
may be refunded the difference; if the car is
worth less, the lessee will pay some or all of the
difference. Payments are usually higher under a
closed-end lease than under an open-end lease.
Open-end leases more commonly have a purchase
option at the end of the lease term.
To lease or rent an auto, an individual must
show a valid driver’s license and, usually, a major
credit card. A rental business may require that a
customer have a good driving record and be of a
certain age, sometimes 25 years old or older. An
auto rental, as opposed to a lease, may be as
short as one day. A rental company may offer a
collision damage waiver (CDW) option, which
provides insurance coverage for damages to the
rented car. The CDW option does not cover personal
injuries or personal property damage.
Operation and Maintenance
The operation of an automobile on a public
street or highway is a privilege that can be regulated
by motor vehicle laws. The individual
states derive authority to control traffic from
their POLICE POWER, but often they delegate this
authority to a local police force. On the national
level, Congress is empowered to regulate motor
vehicles that are engaged in interstate commerce.
Automobile regulations are provided for the
safety and protection of the public. The laws
must be reasonable and should not impose an
extraordinary burden on the owners or operators.
Such laws also provide a means of identifying
vehicles involved in an accident or a theft
and of raising revenue for the state by fees
imposed on the owner or operator.
Registration and Licensing Every state
requires the owner of a vehicle to possess two
documents: a certificate of ownership, or title,
and a certificate of registration. Through registration,
the owner’s name, the type of vehicle,
the vehicle’s license plate number, and the VIN
are all registered with the state in a central government
office. On payment of a fee, a certificate
of registration and license plates are given to the
owner as evidence of compliance with the law.
The operator is required to display the license
plates appropriately on the car—one on the
back of the vehicle and sometimes one on the
front and the back—and have the certificate of
registration and license in possession while driving
and ready to display when in an accident or
requested to do so by a police officer. If a driver
moves to another state, she or he must register
the vehicle in that state within a certain amount
of time, either immediately or within 20 to 30
days.
A driver’s license is also mandatory in every
state. The age at which a state allows a person to
drive varies, though it is usually sixteen. Other
qualifications for a driver’s license include physical
and mental fitness, comprehension of traffic
regulations, and ability to operate a vehicle competently.
Most states require a person to pass a
written examination, an eye test, and a driving
test before being issued a license. States generally
allow an individual with a learner’s permit or
temporary license to operate a vehicle when
accompanied by a licensed driver. This arrangement
enables a person to develop the driving
skills needed to qualify for a license. A license
can be revoked or suspended when the motorist
disregards the safety of people and property,
when a physical or mental disability impairs
driving ability, or if the motorist fails to accurately
disclose information on the license application.
When the state revokes a person’s license,
it permanently denies that person the right to
drive; when it suspends a license, it temporarily
denies the right to drive.
Because teenaged drivers are more likely to
cause traffic accidents, several states have
adopted systems of graduated driver licensing
(GDL). Under this system, teenaged drivers typically
first receive a learner’s permit for about six
months, during which time all driving must be
supervised by an adult. During the next stage, an
intermediate level, teen drivers may drive without
the supervision of an adult during the daytime
but cannot drive at night without an adult
until the age of 18, and cannot have more than
one teenaged passenger in the car during unsupervised
driving times. More than 30 states and
the District of Columbia have adopted a GDL
system.
Traffic Laws Dozens of laws are related to
the operation of an automobile, a large number
of which vary by state. Minor traffic offenses
include parking and speeding violations. More
serious traffic offenses are reckless driving, leaving
the scene of an accident, and driving without
a license. Most states require motorists to file
reports with the proper authorities when they
are involved in accidents.
Speed limits vary by state. In 1973, during
the height of the energy crisis, Congress defined
a national speed limit of 55 mph in order to
reduce gasoline consumption; the 55-mph limit
also had the unintended effect of lowering the
traffic fatality rate. Since then, most states have
returned to an upper limit of 65 mph. Two types
of speed limits are imposed: fixed maximum
and PRIMA FACIE. Under fixed maximum limits,
it is unlawful to exceed the stated limit anywhere
and at any time. Under prima facie limits, it is
possible for a driver to prove in certain cases that
a speed in excess of the limit was not unsafe and
therefore not unlawful, given the condition of
the highway, amount of traffic, and other circumstances.
All states require children riding in automobiles
to be restrained using safety belts or safety
seats. Most states require adults to wear belts as
well, though some require belts only for adults
in the front seat.Violation of such laws results in
a fine. In 1984, New York became the first state
to pass a law making seat belts mandatory for
adults.
Driving under the Influence Driving under
the influence of alcohol and other drugs is the
major cause of traffic deaths in the United
States. Drunk drivers kill an estimated 25,000
people a year. States use different terms to
describe driving under the influence of mindaltering
chemicals, or what is popularly known
as drunk driving. These include driving under the influence (DUI), operating under the influence
(OUI), and driving while intoxicated (DWI). To
arrest someone for drunk driving, the state must
have proof that the person is under the influence
of alcohol or other drugs, and the person must
be in actual physical control of a vehicle and
impaired in the ability to operate it safely. Every
state has “implied consent” laws that require
those with a driver’s license to submit to sobriety
tests if a police officer suspects they are
intoxicated. These tests may include a field
sobriety test (a test at the scene, such as walking
a straight line), or blood, breath, or urine tests,
usually administered at a police station. Refusal
to take a sobriety test can result in suspension of
the driver’s license.Most states have “per se” laws
that prohibit persons from driving if they have a
blood-alcohol reading above a certain level. Several
states have lowered their per se blood-alcohol
limits to 0.08 percent. Penalties vary by state
but can be particularly severe for repeat offenders,
often involving jail sentences and revocation
of driving privileges.
DRAMSHOP ACTS make those who sell liquor
for consumption on their premises, such as bars
and restaurants, liable for damages caused by an
intoxicated patron’s subsequent actions. In some
states, individuals injured by a drunk driver have
used such laws to sue bars and restaurants that
served liquor to the driver. “Social host” statutes
make hosts of parties who serve alcohol and
other drugs liable for any damages or injuries
caused by guests who subsequently drive while
under the influence.
Several national organizations have been
formed to combat drunk driving. These include
MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD)
and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD).
The legal drinking age has been raised to 21 in
every state, largely in an attempt to reduce
drunk driving.Most states also make it illegal to
transport an open alcoholic beverage container
in a vehicle. Alcohol-related deaths as a proportion
of all traffic deaths decreased from about 56
percent in 1982 to 47 percent in 1991.
Other Crimes Criminals both target and
use automobiles in a number of different types
of crime. Cars have been a favorite object of
theft ever since their invention. As early as 1919,
the DYER ACT, or National Motor Vehicle Theft
Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2311 et seq.), imposed harsh
sentences on those who transported stolen vehicles
across state lines. Car theft remains a serious
problem in many areas of the country and is a
major contributor to high insurance premiums
in many urban areas. In 1994, Congress passed
the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act (18
U.S.C.A. § 511 et seq.; 42 U.S.C.A. § 13701 note,
§ 14171 [West 1995]), which established a program
whereby owners can register their cars
with the government, provide information on
where their vehicles are usually driven, and affix
a decal or marker to the cars. Owners who register
their cars in the program authorize the police
to stop the cars and question the occupants
when the vehicles are out of their normal areas
of operation.
Autos are also frequently used to commit
crimes. Drivers whose NEGLIGENCE causes accidents
that result in the death of other human
beings may be found guilty of MANSLAUGHTER
(the unlawful killing of another without malice
aforethought, that is, without the intention of
causing harm through an illegal act), including
criminally negligent manslaughter, a crime punishable
by imprisonment. Two types of crime
that have received a great deal of public attention
are drive-by shootings, in which occupants
of a vehicle fire guns at pedestrians or at people
in other cars, and car-jackings, in which criminals
hijack, or take over, cars from their owners
or operators, often robbing and sometimes
killing the victims in the process. Because of the
usually random nature of such crimes, the public
has called for severe penalties for them. The
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACT OF 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108
Stat. 1796) made killings caused by drive-by
shootings or car-jackings punishable by death.
Insurance Most states require the owner to
acquire auto insurance or deposit a bond before
a vehicle can be properly registered. Insurance
provides compensation for innocent people who
suffer injuries resulting from the negligent operation
of a vehicle. Other states have liability, or
financial responsibility, statutes that require a
motorist to pay for damages suffered in an accident
resulting from his or her negligence and to
furnish proof of financial capability to cover
damages that he or she may cause in the future.
These statutes do not necessarily require vehicle
liability insurance.
About half of all states require that licensed
drivers carry automobile insurance with liability,
medical, and physical damage coverage. Liability
insurance protects a vehicle owner against
financial responsibility for damages caused by
the negligence of the insured or other covered drivers. It consists of bodily injury, or personal
liability protection and property damage protection.
Medical payments insurance covers the
insured’s household for medical and funeral
expenses that result from an auto accident.
Physical damage insurance consists of collision
coverage, which pays for damage to a car resulting
from collision, regardless of fault, and comprehensive
coverage, which pays for damage
from theft, fire, or VANDALISM. Over 20 states
also require that drivers carry coverage to protect
against uninsured motorists. Such coverage
allows insured drivers to receive payments from
their own insurer should they suffer injuries
caused by an uninsured driver. Most insurance
policies offer a choice of deductible, which is the
portion of an insurance claim that the insured
must pay. The higher the deductible, the lower
the annual insurance premium or payment.
Many states have laws requiring no-fault
automobile insurance. Under no-fault insurance,
each person’s own insurance company
pays for injury or damage in an auto accident,
up to a certain limit, irrespective of whose fault
the accident is. Each person is entitled to payment
for loss of wages or salary, not exceeding a
certain percentage of the value of such loss or a
fixed weekly amount.
No-fault statutes provide that every person
who receives personal injury benefits gives up
the right to sue for damages. However, a person
who is licensed to drive in a state that requires
no-fault insurance may sue someone who has
caused an accident and who is licensed in
another state that does not require no-fault
insurance. In some states, a person who has not
obtained no-fault auto insurance is personally
liable to pay damages. Some states do not abolish
liability arising from the ownership, maintenance,
or operation of a motor vehicle in certain
circumstances, such as those in which the harm
was intentionally caused, the injured person has
suffered death or serious injuries, or medical
expenses exceed a certain limit.
States that do not have compulsory automobile
insurance typically have financial responsibility
acts. These laws are designed to ensure that
negligent drivers who injure others will pay any
resulting claims. They require a proof of financial
responsibility from drivers involved in an
accident. After reporting the accident to a state
agency, drivers who do not have adequate insurance
coverage must post a cash deposit or equivalent
bond of up to $60,000, unless the other
driver provides a written release from liability.
Disposal
The last stage in the life cycle of an automobile
is its disposal and recycling. In the United
States, between 10 and 12 million cars are disposed
of each year. In most cases, the first stage
of disposal is handled by a wrecking or salvage
yard.Most states require the salvage yard to have
the title to an auto before the vehicle can be
destroyed and to contact a state agency regarding its destruction. This step helps to prevent the
destruction of cars used in crimes. Salvage yards
typically must be licensed with a state pollution
control agency for hazardous waste disposal.
Salvage yards remove parts and items of value
that can be recycled from the vehicle, such as
batteries and fluids.What is left of the automobile
is then sold to a shredder, a business that
breaks the car up into small parts and separates
the metal from the nonmetal parts. Roughly 25
percent of the auto cannot be recycled and must
be disposed of in a landfill. Auto residue to be
disposed of in a landfill typically must be tested
to see that it meets the standards for disposal of
hazardous waste.
FURTHER READINGS
American Automobile Association. 1993. Digest of Motor
Laws. Heathrow, Fla.: American Automobile Association.
“Automobiles.” 1994. In American Bar Association Family
Legal Guide. New York: Random House.
Carper, Donald L., et al. 1995. “Owning and Operating
Motor Vehicles.” In Understanding the Law. 2d ed. St.
Paul,Minn.:West.
Crandall, Robert W., et al. 1986. Regulating the Automobile.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
Goodman, Richard M. 1983. Automobile Design Liability. 2d
ed. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Cooperative.
Haas, Carol. 1991. Your Driving and the Law. Bountiful,
Utah: Horizon.
Mashaw, Jerry L., and David L. Harfst. 1990. The Struggle for
Auto Safety. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Nader, Ralph. 1965. Unsafe at any Speed. New York: Grossman.
Research Institute of America, Inc. 2000. Tax Consequences of
Using Autos for Business. New York: Research Institute of
America.
Winston, Clifford, et al. 1987. Blind Intersection? Policy and
the Automobile Industry.Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Alcohol; Automobile Searches; Collision; Consumer Protection;
Environmental Law; Highway; Import Quotas; Personal
Property; Product Liability; Punitive Damages; Title;
Transportation Department.

What to Do If You Are in an Auto Accident

Sooner or later, you are likely to have an accident.
Fortunately, it will probably be a minor collision
that damages only the vehicles involved. However,
whether you are in a minor or major accident, behaving
coolly, calmly, and properly after it occurs could
save you a lot of money and trouble.
Some suggestions on what to do if you are in an
auto accident:
1. If possible, move your car to the side of the road
or out of the way of traffic.
2. Turn on your car flashers or set up flares to warn
other motorists of the accident.
3. Do not make any statements concerning who
was at fault, or assign blame to anyone involved.
4. Help any persons who are injured. Most states
have laws requiring you to render aid to anyone
injured in the accident. Call an ambulance if necessary.
5. Write down the name, address, license plate
number, and driver’s license number of the other
driver and ask to see his or her vehicle registration
certificate and proof of insurance. Write
down the insurance company name and policy
number of the other driver. If asked, do the same
for the other driver. Do not reveal the amount of
your insurance coverage.
6. Write down the names and addresses of all passengers
involved and of any witnesses to the
accident.
7. Notify the police, particularly if anyone is hurt or
injured at the scene.
8. Write down the names and badge numbers of
any police officers at the scene.
9. If possible, take a picture of the scene of the
accident, including damage to cars and skid
marks.
10. Draw a rough diagram of what happened in the
accident, noting road conditions, weather, and
lighting.
11. If you suspect you have any injuries, obtain medical
care.
12. Talk to a lawyer if you intend to file a lawsuit
regarding the accident.
All states require those involved in an accident to
file a report with the police or bureau of motor vehicles
if the accident involves a death, a personal
injury, or property damage above a certain amount,
such as $500. Some states require that the report be
made immediately; others allow five to thirty days.
Failure to file a report is a misdemeanor in most
states and could result in the suspension of your driver’s
license.
Some insurance companies provide their policyholders
with accident report forms. Such forms make
it easier to obtain the necessary information if you
are in an accident. If you have them, keep them
handy in your vehicle.

Unsafe at Any Speed

For over half a century the automobile has brought
death, injury, and the most inestimable sorrow
and deprivation to millions of people.” So RALPH
NADER began his 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed:
The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile,
a landmark in the history of U.S. CONSUMER PROTECTION.
Nader’s book recounts how U.S. automobile manufacturers
resisted attempts to improve auto safety in
the 1950s and 1960s. Even when makers of other vehicles
such as planes, boats, and trains were forced to
adhere to safety regulations, automakers were still
largely uncontrolled in the area of safety. “The gap
between existing design and attainable safety,”
Nader wrote, “has widened enormously in the postwar
period.”
Nader examined how auto companies lobbied
against safety regulation and organized public relations
campaigns that asserted over and over again
that most injuries were the result of driver error. He
argued that the best and most cost-effective way to
reduce auto injuries is not to try to alter driver behavior—
as honorable a goal as that might be— but to
require automakers to design cars that better prevent
accidents from occurring and better protect passengers
if accidents do occur.
In telling his story, Nader cited sobering statistics
on traffic injuries and fatalities, including the fact that
auto accidents caused the deaths of 47,700 in 1964—
“the extinguishment of about one and three-quarter
million years of expected lifetimes,” he noted—and
one-third of all hospitalizations for injuries and 25
percent of all cases of partial and complete paralysis
due to injury. Borrowing the zeal and spirit of the
CIVIL RIGHTS reform movement and the faith in technology
of the space program, Nader looked at traffic
fatalities as a public health issue that can be resolved
through public action and technological innovation.
Quoting Walt Whitman’s epigram “If anything is
sacred, the human body is sacred,” Nader asserted
that he was attempting to protect the “body rights” of
U.S. citizens.
To protect those rights, Nader used his book to
call for a number of different strategies to reduce
traffic fatalities and injuries: federal safety standards;
a federal facility for auto safety research, design, and
testing; increased manufacturer research and development
for safety technology; improved consumer
information with regard to auto safety; better disclosure
of auto manufacturers’ safety engineering
efforts; and the creation of a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
It is a mark of Nader’s foresight and
determination that all of those goals were achieved
in the decades following the publishing of Unsafe at
Any Speed.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Nader, Ralph.

No-Fault Automobile Insurance

Ever since the invention of automobiles,
there have been automobile
accidents. And with those accidents have
come legal disputes about who was most
at fault in causing them—and who
should be forced to pay damages. The
U.S. legal and political systems have
struggled to determine the best way to
handle the large number of legal disputes
related to automobile accidents.
Although the states vary in their procedures,
two basic approaches have
evolved. The first and older approach is
the traditional liability litigation system,
which attempts to determine, usually
through jury trials, who is
more liable, or more at fault,
and must pay damages. The
second and more recent
approach is no-fault insurance,
which simply allows each party
to be compensated, regardless
of fault, by its own insurance
company for accident damages. Both
approaches have their advantages and
disadvantages, and the debate about
which is better continues.
The traditional liability litigation system
developed out of the English COMMON
LAW. Under this system, anyone
who suffers an injury from a wrong or
negligent act of another is free to sue the
other party for damages. For example,
someone who is paralyzed in an automobile
accident and becomes confined to a
wheelchair may sue the other driver or
drivers involved in the accident.Whether
or not the injured person receives payment
for those damages is largely
dependent on a determination of who
was more at fault in causing the accident.
If, in a court of law, it is determined that
the other driver is at fault, then the
injured person may collect a large sum
from the other driver or, if the other
driver has liability insurance, from the
other driver’s insurance company; if it is
determined that the other driver is not at
fault, the injured person may not receive
any payments beyond those from her or
his own insurance company.
This system of resolving disputes is
also called the TORT litigation process. In
relation to automobile accidents, a tort is
a civil (as opposed to criminal)
wrong that causes an accident—
for example, failure to
practice caution while driving,
thus causing a collision with
another car and injuries to its
passengers.
As time passed and auto
accidents became more frequent, some
people began to point out problems in
the liability litigation system for resolving
accident disputes. They noted that, owing
to the complicated nature of many automobile
accidents, it often took a great
deal of time to determine who was at
fault. As a result, many accident victims
had to wait a considerable period before
they could receive adequate compensation
for their injuries. Other victims who
may have been unable to work because of
injuries, frequently settled for smaller
amounts or even waived their right to a
trial, in order to receive faster payment
from insurance companies. Other critics
of the liability litigation process claimed
that the awards granted in auto accident
cases varied greatly. Some people were
overpaid, and others underpaid, for their
damages. A better system, critics maintained,
would make all drivers share in
the cost of accidents. These critics began
to press for a no-fault insurance system as
an alternative to liability litigation.
As early as 1946, the Province of
Saskatchewan, Canada, enacted no-fault
auto insurance. Under a no-fault system,
those involved in an accident are compensated
for their physical injuries up to
a certain limit; even the driver who
causes the accident is paid for damages.
In its purest form, no-fault automobile
insurance does not allow those involved
in an accident to sue each other, nor can
any party recover damages for pain and
suffering. However, no-fault plans are
often combined with traditional liability
systems to allow accident victims to sue
when damages exceed a certain threshold.
For example, in New York, it is possible
to sue to recover for economic
damages greater than $50,000 or for pain
and suffering because of death or serious
injury. No-fault insurance plans are
always compulsory, and every driver who
wishes to register a vehicle must obtain at
least the minimum standard of no-fault
insurance.
In the United States, no-fault automobile
insurance was first enacted by
Massachusetts in 1971 (Mass. Gen. Laws
Ann. ch. 90 § 34A et seq. [West 1995]) in
response to public dissatisfaction with
long, drawn-out, and expensive court cases for compensation of losses suffered
in traffic accidents. In the same year,
Congress considered no-fault as a comprehensive
national automobile insurance
plan, but the proposal never became
law. That unsuccessful bill evolved into
the National Standards for No-Fault
Insurance Plans Act, which would have
set federal standards for state no-fault
insurance laws. It too did not pass. Opponents
of the bill claimed that the states
should be allowed to experiment with
this new approach before a national plan
was adopted. By the mid-1990s, roughly
half the states had enacted no-fault insurance
plans.
In arguing for no-fault insurance,
advocates pointed out a number of
advantages, including faster benefits payment
and more equal damages awards to
accident victims. They claimed that nofault
insurance would reduce the number
of traffic-related court cases, thereby
freeing up the courts to consider other
cases. No-fault, they argued, would also
reduce the cost of car insurance premiums
as the legal costs associated with settling
auto-related cases decreased. Since
the establishment of no-fault insurance
in many states, no-fault advocates have
bolstered their cause even more by pointing
to statistics showing that no-fault
plans increase the percentage of insurance
benefits payments that go to victims
rather than to lawyers and court costs.
According to those statistics, in states
without no-fault insurance, only fortyeight
cents of each dollar spent for insurance
premiums goes to those injured in
accidents, whereas thirty-two cents goes
to court costs and lawyers’ fees. However,
under the no-fault system in force in
Michigan, for example, seventy-three
cents of each insurance premium dollar
goes to accident victims and four cents
goes to court costs and lawyers’ fees
(Carper 1992).
On the other side of the issue, critics
make a number of different points
against no-fault insurance.Many, including
trial lawyers and some consumer
advocates, object to no-fault insurance’s
elimination of or substantial restrictions
on the right to sue for damages. Many
states, for example, allow injured parties
to sue for “pain and suffering” only if
they have sustained specific injuries such
as dismemberment, disfigurement, or
fracture. Often, “soft-tissue” injuries like
whiplash are not allowed as adequate
grounds for a lawsuit. Critics also maintain
that no-fault insurance takes away
the incentive to drive safely. Under the
system of no-fault insurance, careless,
negligent drivers are entitled to the same
compensation in an accident as are careful,
responsible drivers. In addition, critics
of no-fault insurance cite evidence
that the system has not reduced insurance
premiums. Under no-fault plans, they
argue, the number of persons receiving
benefits payments has increased, thus offsetting
the reduction in legal costs.
It remains to be seen whether nofault
insurance will continue to spread to
other states. Nevada and Pennsylvania
have tried no-fault insurance plans and
repealed them, with Nevada returning to
a financial responsibility law and mandatory
liability and property damage insurance.
California has considered no-fault
insurance for many years but has never
adopted it. Some states are looking at
compromise plans that preserve elements
of both the traditional liability litigation
system and the no-fault system. These
plans, such as the one in New York, compensate
all accident victims, regardless of
fault, for basic economic losses—including
medical and hospital expenses and
lost wages or services—and in the process
eliminate small cases where litigation is
least cost-effective. At the same time,
such plans preserve the right to sue for
damages in cases of death or serious
injury or when damages exceed a certain
amount.
In the end, the question of how to
handle auto accident disputes will be
decided on the basis of which system—
liability litigation, no-fault insurance, or
a compromise between the two—is
deemed better at limiting costs and at the
same time preserving the value of fairness
that underlies the U.S. system of justice.
FURTHER READINGS
Lascher, Edward L., Jr., and Michael R. Powers,
eds. 2001. The Economics and Politics of
Choice No-Fault Insurance. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Liao,Y-Ping, and Michelle J.White. 2002.“No-
Fault for Motor Vehicles: an Economic
Analysis.” American Law and Economics
Review 4 (fall): 258–94.
Mandell, Mark S. 1999. “What’s Wrong with
Auto No-Fault: S. 625, the Auto-Choice
Reform Act.” Trial Lawyers Quarterly 29
(winter): 31–42.
Schwartz, Gary T. 2000. “Auto No-Fault and
First-Party Insurance: Advantages and
Problems.” Southern California Law
Review 73 (March): 611–75.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Insurance; Tort Law.