Legal Commentary

I'm curious to know thoughts about changing the standard first year Torts course to something a little more inclusive ? and perhaps realistic. Most first year Torts courses do not teach insurance issues to any meaningful degree. Most also do not talk about other accident compensation schemes, such as worker's compensation, no-fault automobile benefits, and the like.

In today's complex world where administrative regimes and insurance loom so large over the accident compensation systems in North America, why do we hang onto the 'fiction' that there are 'pure' Torts issues? Isn't this a bit of a ruse? Doesn't insurance drive the Tort system? No pocket = no tort suit. Yet we still keep our casebooks full of doctrinal torts cases and turn a blind eye toward where the money is really coming from - insurance.

Does anyone else find this curious?

I find, more and more, I need to teach basic insurance law principles in first year Torts. Otherwise, it becomes an unsustainable fiction. In fact, one student recently described learning about insurance after half a year of Torts as a complete 'let-down.' In other words, is insurance really driving all those fun, kooky cases? Yes. Surprise.

Could we move away from a standard torts doctrine-only course - to something more like 'Compensation for Injury" in the first year?

Is not Torts but one small part of an entire system of law, with insurance and even procedural issues woven in?

I'd even dare to go so far as to say that many an academic, in working out a torts problem, tends to forget the applicability of insurance and insurability behind most Torts issues. Or is insurance just the dirty word that wrecks the fun of Torts?

-ESK