There was a solution to this problem that was tried and failed: no fault insurance. Why did it fail? Because lawyers and insurance companies could make more mon

There was a solution to this problem that was tried and failed: no fault insurance. Why did it fail? Because lawyers and insurance companies could make more money if fault were reintroduced to the system, and so fault crept back in. The only place in the American tort system where you have true no-fault is worker's comp: if you are injured at the workplace, you are entitled to compensation. Period. It wasn't always that way: workers had to prove that the employer or someone else was at fault to recover. So why not, "if you are injured while driving an automobile, you are entitled to compensation"? Insurance costs would be much, much lower and you would not need technical kludges like this one. Law and tech rarely mix coherently. You can't force me to give up the password to my phone, but you can force me to use my fingerprint to unlock the phone. The way forward is more general application of the principles used to make worker's comp universal. And by the way, other countries do not have this problem.