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
MANDERINO, Justice
(dissenting).
The legislature may bring about a change in the law which it deems advisable by one of two procedures. It may submit a constitutional amendment to the people for approval, or it may approve legislation without submission to the people. In this case the legislature clearly chose an improper procedure, and no amount of semantics can justify the course of action chosen.
The opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Jones and the concurring opinions agree that, without the people’s approval, the legislature cannot put a maximum dollar amount on damages recoverable by citizens for injuries. Yet, it is contended that this proposition does not prevent the abolition of a cause of action. The difference may make sense in a parlor word game but not in constitutional law. These opinions in effect claim that a citizen who suffers damages in the amount of $100,000 cannot have the damages limited by legislation to $50,000 (a maximum dollar amount), but can have the damages limited to zero dollars because “nothing” does not constitute a maximum dollar limitation but something else. It’s like telling an employee that his employer cannot cut his sala *421 ry from $200 a week to $100 a week — but can cut it from $200 to $0.
The Pennsylvania Constitution now provides that,
“All courts shall be open; and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.” (Article I, Section 11) (emphasis added).
“The General Assembly may enact [laws] but in no other cases shall the General Assembly limit the amount to be recovered . . . for injuries to persons . . . .” (Article III, Section 18) (emphasis added).
I cannot subscribe to such a ludicrous interpretation of these provisions as is put forth by the opinions upholding the constitutionality of the No-Fault Act.