For a historical survey oftort law, see H. and L.Mazeaud and A.Tunc,Jtesponsabilit£dvUell95T)nn. Met seq, 42 ctseq. 2. In Germany, laws were enacted concerning social insurance beginning in 1883, on the basis of the Kaiser's Proclamation of 1881 which included Bismarck's programmes. A few years later, similar laws were passed in a number of other European States, and later, in other States the world over. JULY 1982] Compensation for Pain and Suffering 551 I am referring particularly to the provisions based on the no-fault principle which were adopted and which have achieved great success in certain fields. The most important of these fields is that of compensation for automobile injuries: many significant, innovative laws have been legislated in various States on this subject, beginning with the Law passed in Saskatchewan in 1946. The Israeli Road Accident Victims (Compensation) Law, 1975, is prominent amongst these Laws. In Puerto Rica, the law institutes a system of real social insurance in this field, and in a number of other cases, too, 3 the insuring body is a government agency. Another field in which the principle of strict liability is taking root in the U.S.A., Great Britain and other States is that of compensation for product injuries. Israel joined the ranks of these States recently with its passage of the Defective Products Liability Law, 1980. Medical injuries constitute yet another field, and at this point it is appropriate to mention that one State-Swedenhas passed a Law, which came into force in 1975, 4 instituting compulsory insurance for medical injuries. It is noteworthy that with respect to compensation for crime victims, by 1980 at least 44 States had special programmes, all administered by State agencies, • and in some cases, by those very bodies responsible for social security in general or for workmen's compensation. Worthy of special mention in this context is the revolutionary New Zealand Law which came into force in 1974. s This Law belongs in the category of social insurance, and it instituted No-Fault liability and insurance with respect to all accident victims, awarding them relatively high compensation. In view of this impressive evolution, the question arises as to whether, and to what extent, social insurance, considering its exclusive nature, its principles and special aims, is capable of and ready to absorb these provisions concerning compensation for personal injury which are grounded in tort law, and whether there is any purpose in working towards comprehensive application of this trend, since, inter alia, these provisions include the awarding of compensation for pain and suffering. The present article is devoted to examining these problems. II. ON SOCIAL INSURANCE IN GENERAL To enable me to answer the above questions, I must mention, albeit briefly, several of the main characteristics and peculiarities of social insurance in our times. 3. E.g. in the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and in two Australian States (Victoria and Tasmania). 4.

No abstract

In Israeli law eighteen statutes now regulate the legal status of various kinds of disabled persons. These statutes apply to about twice the number of different categories of disabled persons, classified in groups or classes, according to the cause and circumstances of disablement. Ignoring voluntary arrangements, the number of legal statuses or classifications (i.e. the complex of legal rights, pecuniary andin specie, together with the conditions of entitlement) may be put at eleven, which includes groups of people disabledde factowho are not recognised as disabled under law since they do not come within the statutory definition of disablement or otherwise meet the conditions of entitlement. The number of statuses is smaller than the number of statutes because some of the latter merely extend the application of other statutesin pari materia.If we address ourselves to the substance of the legal status of these disabled persons, the general impression obtained reflects a kind of order of preference among the different groups, sometimes with considerable gaps. At the lowest level are the most deprived, thede factodisabled, who lack all rights as such, and the ordinary disabled (those who do not fall into any specific category but are recognised as disabled—the “new” and “long-standing” invalids of Chapter 6B of the National Insurance Law (Consolidated Version), 1968, in respect of whom a paucity of rights exists, in the nature only ofultimum subsidium. At the upper level stand the most preferred groups under existing law, traffic-accident victims and disabled soldiers.

No abstract