Why The 50/50 No-fault Accident Law is Unfair.

Vecteezy

Many Americans in the U.S. get into car accidents a year Roman Law Group claims that “A car accident in Pennsylvania can happen in an instant and come with serious consequences. In 2023 alone, the Keystone State logged 110,382 reportable car accidents, resulting in 66,563 injuries and 1,209 fatalities, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).”  

 

Many people who do get in some car accidents are left unpaid, emotionally hurt, and higher insurance costs a month even if you did not cause the accident. This is because of the 50/50 no fault rule in America. This is where two people get into an accident, but there is not enough evidence to prove who was truly at fault, making it 50/50. People are left with a damaged car, with no money to pay for it, emotionally hurt, or are now scared to drive because they're in fear of being in another accident.  

 

Many people try to fight these claims but do not have enough evidence to support their claim even if they are in the right and did not cause the accident. Which can be very frustrating for many people. And if you were to oppose and go to court for it and you lose then you may be liable to pay for the other person's damages or at least half. Another reason why some people might not agree with the law is because their insurance will get more expensive even though the law is designed to lower insurance costs. People who get caught in these disputes often experience skyrocketing insurance premiums as one of the most immediate consequences. When the blame is split down in the middle, both insurance companies treat the incident as a chargeable offense. For some that means higher rates for years, a cost they shouldn't be forced to pay if they were following the rules of the road.  

 

Insurance experts claim these frustrations shouldn’t be brushed aside. They explain that in practice a 50/50 ruling can leave out the most the details that mean the most speed, weather, driving behavior and vehicle position. By flattening every situation into equal fault, the law can erase nuance and leave responsible drivers footing bills they feel belong to someone else. 

 

People also raise concerns about how the rule may embolden reckless behavior. If a negligent driver knows the outcome will likely be split evenly, some fear it reduces personal accountability. In their view, careless decisions will only cost them half. This is very dangerous, especially when distracted driving is at a all-time high.  

 

The emotional impact shouldn't be overlooked either. People lose money, their car, or even loved ones due to accidents. When a driver who believes they follow every road law finds out the accident was 50/50 they get a sense of distrust, anger and frustration.  

 

In 1971 Florida became one of the first states to adopt no-fault auto insurance. The system was designed to lower insurance costs by limiting lawsuits over minor accidents. Now Florida governor Ron DeSantis wants to try and dismantle the law because he believes that it doesn't help lower insurance. 

 

 “DeSantis reiterated his stance, saying, “If they have a reform where we can show that it’s going to lower rates, it’s fine. But let’s just be clear. I mean, you know, we know that’s something that people from the legal and the trial bar have wanted to do. And so why would they want to do that? Obviously, they see that there’s opportunities for them to make money off of it.” He added, “I don’t want to do anything that’s going to raise the rates.”” insurancebusinessmag.

With no one at fault, this law makes it unfair to both drivers. Many people also suffer from ptsd after accidents as Kenardy, Justin claims  “Objective To investigate the relation between mental health and disability after a road traffic crash (RTC) up to 24 months for claimants with predominantly minor injuries in an Australian sample. Design Longitudinal cohort study with survey and telephone interview data collected at approximately 6, 12, and 24 months post-RTC. Setting Not applicable.” 

 

Many people try to fight these claims but do not have enough evidence to support their claim even if they are in the right and did not cause the accident. Which can be very frustrating for many people. And if you were to oppose and go to court for it and you lose then you may be liable to pay for the other person's damages or at least half. Another reason why some people might not agree with the law is because their insurance will get more expensive even though the law is designed to lower insurance costs. 

 

This is my perception of the law, but the opposing argument might agree with the 50/50 law because they may think both parties were equally at fault, when both drivers admit they are at fault the ruling could be fair, and that ensures that both drivers were held accountable for their part in the collision.  

 

People might agree with the law because there's no need to wait weeks or months for fault investigations, police reports, or insurance companies fighting each other. The law, if ruled out correctly, also avoids arguments over blame like finger pointing, biased police reports, conflicting driver statements, and “your word vs mine” disputes.  

 An article from Insurance Information Institute states “The no-fault system is intended to lower the cost of auto insurance by taking small claims out of the courts. Each insurance company compensates its own policyholders (the first party) for the cost of minor injuries, regardless of who was at fault in the accident.” Which proves that when insurance companies rule out 50/50 the cost of your insurance lowers.  

 

There are about 110,382 reportable accidents a year in the United States, and many don't get any insurance claims due to the 50/50 ruling. While it can be fair if both drivers agree that they are in the wrong, the law can still be very unfair to both drivers if they think one driver is more at fault than the other, or if there is not enough evidence to prove that the other driver is in the wrong. This can lead to frustration, unpaid damages, and in even some more severe cases PTSD. Which is why the law is unfair, and more governors like Ron DeSantis need to dissemble the law.