rejecting claim that Pennsylvania’s No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
How later courts described this case
- rejecting claim that Pennsylvania’s No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
- No-Fault Act abolished the common law tort of negligence for motor vehicle accident victims suffering personal injury damages under $750
- motorcycles are motor vehicles for purposes of compulsory insurance; no- fault benefits, therefore, are available to third persons injured by a motorcycle
- partial abrogation of cause of action in tort under the Pennsylvania No Fault Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*414 O’BRIEN, Justice
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent. The majority has concluded that under Sherwood, v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110 , 117 A.2d 899 (1955), the No-Fault Bill in which the legislature has limited the amount of recovery in automobile accident cases is constitutional. I agree with the rationale of Sherwood, supra, but do not find it controlling in the case at bar. In Sherwood , the legislature eliminated a cause of action, while in the instant case they have limited the amount recoverable in certain automobile tort actions. The No-Fault Bill does not allow a person with less than $750.00 in medical bills to sue for pain and suffering. Is this not a limitation of recovery prohibited under Article III, Section 18, of the Pennsylvania Constitution ?
In addition, assuming that the hurdle of Article III, Section 18, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, can be overcome, I am also of the opinion that the No-Fault Bill violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The majority has concluded that the classifications established in the bill when a person may or may not sue are reasonable and, therefore, pass Constitutional muster. I am not so convinced. I see no rational reason to conclude that a person who has $750.00 in medical bills has suffered so much more than a person with $749.00 in medical bills that the former may sue, while the latter may not. No-Fault will be a source of a tremendous potential for abuse, unnecessary and protracted medical services, inflated charges for medical care, and the discrimination between those able to secure proper medical care and those not as fortunate.
In concluding, I feel constrained to point out that one of the reasons for the passage of the No-Fault Act was the alleged problem of small claims tying up this Commonwealth’s civil court system. This is a legitimate concern.
*415 However, several counties within this Commonwealth have established arbitration procedures for small automobile tort claims that have proven very effective in dealing with the problem of court congestion. In establishing the arbitration procedure, the counties have taken steps to eliminate court congestion and yet retained a person’s right to recover for his non-economic loss.
Accordingly, I would hold the No-Fault legislation unconstitutional under both the state and federal constitutions.