SCHOOL OF LAW / TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY VOL. III, NUMBER APRil 3 1972 Shellhaas To Accept New Wyoming Post By LARRY GLAZNER Dictum Staff " It is unethical for a lawyer to learn law on his c1ient' ~ time; it is likewise unethical for a teacher to learn law on his students' time. Professors should have a genuine interest in imparting all the knowledge possible to students. Students should be required to work hard." That statement, made by Professor Glen W. Shell haas, explains his entire attitude and philosophy toward the profession of teaching law. That he puts such philosophy into practice is illustrated by the fact that each of the first two classes to enter Texas Tech University Law School designated him the Outstanding First Year Professor. (Continued Professor Shell haas was born in Lima, Ohio, and spent his early years in that state. He graduated from Ohio State University School of Law in 1943, earning his J.D ., degree summa cum laude and finishing first in his law school class. After three years in the Navy as a P.T. boat commander in the South Pacific, he began practicing law in Bellefontaine, Ohio. During this time he was also a prosecuting attorney in Logan County, as well as a lecturer at Ohio State University. In 1963, after 17 years of private practice, Professor Shellhaas took his first full-time teaching position at the University of Wyoming School of Law. He is leaving Texas Tech this year to return to Wyoming as a professor of law . on Page 3) Don Collier, Arliss Champlin Get Top Law Review Offices ALL'S FAIR IN MEMBERSHIP DRIVE-According to membership statistics, the Tech law School ranks number one in membership on a percentage basis among all law schools in the American Bar Association flaw student Division's 13th Circuit. Perhaps some of the Tech law student interest can be explained by the gimmick used in the latest membership drive when a young lady in Playboy Bunny attire handed out ABA/lSD materials in the halls of our predominately-male institution . Appearing from left to right are Gerald Smith, ABA/lSD Representative; Susie leonard and Professor Rodric Schoen. No-Fault Insurance Program Analyzed By Prof. Cummins By DAVID CUMMINS Associate Professor School of Law No-fault insurance is a plan under which the person who is at fault in causing an auto accident is immunized from liability. He is no longer liable to the injured person, or to the surviving family of a deceased person, or to the owner of damaged or demolished property. The second aspect of the plan is that every person who owns a car is required to purchase insurance to cover himself, his family, passengers in his car, any person who drives his car with his permission, pedestrians and bicyclists. This insurance coverage is applicable without regard to whether or not the claimant was at fault in causing the accident. It is a simple plan which has been introduced in one form or another over the last forty years and which was resurrected by Professors Keeton of Harvard and O'Connell of Illinois in 1965 when they published a book entitled "Basic Protection for the Accident Victim". In the past seven years their energetic and prolific advocacy, coupled with the general public's discontent over the functioning of the current system, and the belated but now vigorous sponsorship of one or another form of the plan by several insurance companies and by Senators Hart and Magnuson in the U.S. Congress, has caused spirited public controversy on this issue. In August 1970, the Massachusetts legislature tested the water by adopting a partial no-fault system and therefore partially retaining the liability system. That plan went into effect January 1, 1971. During the 1971 legislative sessions most state legislatures considered the nofault principle and partial adoptions took place in Delaware, Florida and Illinois. In addition Oregon and South Dakota expanded their first party coverage availability without impairing the liability system. The plans in these other states all commenced on January 1, 1972. Superficial Allure Outlined The superficial allure of the no-fault plans is that (1) there is something for everyone, and (2) we should not make a distinction between presence or absence of fault since the need for compensation by each person bears no relationship to who was at fault in causing the accident. While it is difficult to dispute these claims, it is more difficult for the no-fault advocates to hurdle the obstacle which is immediately apparent. What is it that some must give up under the liability system and what is it that all will get under the no-fault first party coverage? Only when we have analyzed the tradeoff that of necessity takes place under adoption of no-fault can we assess the justice or wisdom of adoption. The present system raises an obligation to compensate persons or survivors of persons (third parties) who are negligently injured, negligently killed, or whose property is negligently damaged or destroyed by another person (policyholder) and this liability is funded by the policyholder's bodily injury liability insurance and property damage liability insurance. Financial responsibility laws require each owner of a car to be financially able to fund a liability up to certain stated limits of liability. Texas limits are $10,000 bodily injury liability per person, $20,000 bodily injury liability for all persons injured or killed in a single accident, and $5,000 property damage liability for all owners of property involved in a single accident. In effect this requires every car owner to (Continued on page 2) Don Collier, second-year student from Friona, has been named the new editorin-chief of the Texas Tech Law Review for the 1972-73 school year. He will succeed B. Newal Squyres, Jr., a member of the May graduating class, effective June I. Succeeding Robert W . (Bob) Baker in the Law Review managing editor's post will be Arliss Champlin of Odessa. Collier, who received his undergraduate degree in agricultural engineering from Texas Tech in 1969, is a member of Delta Theta Phi legal fraternity. Champlin, the new managing editor, received a B.A. in English from Texas Tech in 1970. He is active in the work of Phi Alpha Delta legal fraternity and has served in editorial assistant positions on the Law Review staff during the current school year. The new lead articles editor is Cody Wales of Denver, Colo. Elected to two newly-created positions on the Law Review board were Dan Peck, case note editor, and Mrs. Annette Marple, comment editor. Peck hails from Westport, Conn., and Mrs. Marple resides permanently with her family in Lubbock. Other new officers scheduled to take office in June are Tom Duren of Goldthwaite, Tex., business manager; Charles Hurd of Wichita Falls, topics editor; and Elgin Conner of Lubbock, citations editor. In addition to Baker and Squyres, graduating seniors on the Law Review staff include Phil Wylie, lead articles editor; James B. Shackelford, citation editor; M. Kent Sims, business manager; Hollis Webb, topics editor; and Paul L. Smith, Jane E. Pendleton a nd Milton Walker, note editors. The third full year of Law Review publication will be climaxed in June with the distribution of Vol. 3, No.2, the book compiled during the spring semester. The new edition will feature lead articles by Professors Robert P. Davidow, Martin A. Frey, and Maurice B. Kirk, all members of the Texas Tech Law School faculty, plus a number of articles written by student members of the staff. A new class of Law Review candidates will be extended invitations to join the staff in late Mayor early June. Candidates are selected at the end of each spring semester on the basis of academic achievement during the first year of law school. Crews Thanks SBA I would like to express my appreciation to all of the students who have spent considerable time and effort in the programs of the Student Bar Association during the past year. The multitude of planning and committee sessions have initiated several worthwhile new programs while implementing many already in existence. The Texas Tech legal aid program, the Junior Bar committee program, Texas Model Court Act, the downtown legal aid clinic, an expanded intramurals competition, the Law School Self Study project, placement and the Bar liaison programs, to name a few, would not have been possible without the enthusiasm and service of many who were willing to give their time. I have enjoyed serving as Student Bar President. My sincere thanks and appreciation go to each one of you who has played a part in helping these programs to be a success. Sincerely yours, Richard W . Crews, Jr. DON COLLIER ARLISS CHAMPLIN PAGE TWO DICTUM-APRil 1972 No-F a u It By FRANK SULLIVAN Dictum Staff Green grass and warm weather may make an afternoon in the library seem longer than usual, but 43 third year students have particularly severe cases of spring fever as graduation draws nigh. Those prospective members of the class of '72 are: Bob Baker, Jeff Baynham, Dennis Cadra, Sharon Cannon, Sam Chase, Richie Crews, Jim Dallas, Mike DeGeurin, Janie Pendleton, Jack Edwards, Bill Habern, Joe Hayes, Tom Hill, Dr. Art Howard, Charles Hume, Mike Irish, Mark Laney, John Mann, John Mason, James McDonald, Stan McWilliams, Jim Mullin, Tom Naler, Richard Palmer, John Rapier, Bruce Roberson, Ronald Schmidt, Calvin Scholz, Steve Scott, Jim Shackelford, Kent Sims, Eddie Smith, Paul Smith, Newal Squyres, Danny Taber, Mike Thomas, Donald Vandiver, Milton Walker, Hollis Webb, Don E. Williams, Phil Wylie, Jud Walton, and Jeffrey Wentworth. * * * * * * * * * * * * Recent visitors to the School of Law have included U.S. Sen. Robert Packwood, (R.-Ore.), Colonel Eberhard P. Deutsch, and Barefoot Sanders. Senator Packwood was a coffee guest in the Forum following a University Speakers Series lecture in which he called for liberalized abortion laws and crash programs for family planning. Colonel Eberhard, New Orleans Consul General for the Republic of Austria, called for adoption of his plan to restructure the International Court of Justice. Barefoot Sanders, former Deputy United States Attorney General and candidate for the United States Senate, spoke on "The Justice Department under Katzenbach and Clark" and was guest of honor at a reception sponsored by Professors Reed Quilliam and David Cummins and second-year student Wayne Crocker. The Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals made its annual spring trek to the Allison Courtroom and heard several arguments before interested law student observers during the week of March 7. Texas Tech Law Wives will conclude the year with two outstanding programs. The Aoril meeting features "Astrology-The Age of Aquarius", presented by Mrs. James D. Allison, followed by the election of officers for the 1972-73 year. The May meeting will include the installation of new officers and a style show presented by the Seventeen Shop. All third year wives will be recipients of the P.H.T. Degree (Putting Hubby Through) at the Honors and Awards banquet. The Law School extends its deepest sympathy to the family and friends of firstyear student, Drew Simpson, who was killed in a motorcycle accident. * * * Formation of a Student Advocacy Club under the auspices of the American Trial Lawyers Association, has been announced by Dean Richard Amandes. Purpose of the organization is to generate student interest in trial advocacy and the role of the American Trial Lawyers Association. Those interested in membership should contact Milton Walker. * * * * * * The annual Student Bar Association Goat Roast was held on April 15 at the Lake Ransom Canyon party house. It was reported that all had an uproarious time except the goat. TOM SCHUELLER was chairman of the affair and chief executioner. Texas Tech University paid tribute to exceptional achievement in scholarship and leadership during the annual University Recognition Convocation March 12. Law students receiving academic honors for ranking in the top ten per cent of their respective classes included: Steven Anderton, Karl Clifford, Robert Collier, Elgin Conner, Joe Hayes, Steve Hines, Charles Hurd, Vince Imbordino, Chris Inabnett, Annette Marple, Dan Peck, Mike Riddle, Suzan Riddle, Tom Schueller, John Sears, Newal Squyres, William Wade, Thomas Wales, Jimmy Wright and Phillip Wylie. Students selected for leadership contributions to the School of Law were Grover Hartt, III, John Rapier, Michael South and Don E. Williams, for achievement in Moot Court and appellate advocacy, and Newal Squyres for his work as editor-in-chief of the Law Review. Richard Crews, SBA president, and Jeffrey Wentworth, ABA-LSD president, were cited for leadership contributions to the University. * * * John Mann, chairman of the Honors and Awards Banquet has announced that the annual affair will be held on Thursday, May 12 at the Lubbock Country Club. A cocktail hour will precede the event. Tickets are $3.00 per person and can be purchased in the administration office. * * * Delta Theta Phi members Johnny Actkinson, Joe Crawford, Lee Griffin, Danny Hill, Nathan Hoffman, and John Mann attended the annual regional conference in Austin. Mann, a third-year student, was appointed District Chancellor by National Chancellor, Earl R. Stanley. Later in the month, the Delts proudly announced the association of Professor Eugene Smith as Faculty Adviser. Professor Smith is an alumnus of Hemphill Senate of Southern Methodist University Law School. * * * * * * * * * Grover Hartt, Max Moudy and Frank Sullivan have been chosen to represent Texas Tech Law School in the state Moot Court competition to be held July 3-6 in Houston in conjunction with the Texas Bar Association Convention. Texas Tech Law School was represented by Gerald Smith, and Lee Griffin, at the ABA/LSD Bi-Circuit Convention March 23-25 in New Orleans. Dean Rusk headed up the list of speakers at the meeting, attended by law students from Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. (Continued from page 1) buy liability insurance in at least these amounts and the insurance companies are obligated to offer such liability insurance to every licensed motorist. However, about 7% of the drivers on the road are uninsured and so the law requires the offering of uninsured motorist coverage, which is first party coverage of the policyholder allowing him to recover from his own insurance company the same amount that he could have recovered from the uninsured motorist if he had been insured at the minimum limits. Under the contributory negligence principle only the person who is wholly without fault is entitled to recover, either from the other person on that person's liability insurance coverage or from his own uninsured motorist coverage. Liability vs. No-Fault The first major comparison between the liability system and the no-fault principle begins when we try to ascertain who is eligible to make a recovery. Whereas the liability system covers only those wholly without fault, the no-fault principle also covers those who are partially at fault and those who are wholly at fault. Under the present system a person who wants to financially protect himself in the event he is partially or wholly at fault must buy first party coverage, such as collision, comprehensive, medical payments, and disability (wage loss), in addition to his liability insurance. The majority of all insured car owners have only liability and uninsured motorist insurance coverage and do not have any first party coverage. One of the reasons is that first party coverage is expensive; it costs more than liability insurance coverage. Typical first party coverage as stated above would cost $152.00 per year in Texas, whereas a driver with typical liability and uninsured motorist coverage would pay $79.84 per year for it. But another salient reason is that most persons already have some form of medical expense protection and wage continuation protection because twothirds of America's employers have provided such plans as a fringe benefit of employment and, in addition, individual medical and disability plans are owned by millions of Americans as either primary or secondary coverage. Cost is Important The second major comparison between the liability system and the no-fault principle is reflected in the cost to the policyholder. The first party coverages that presently exist, which are applicable without regard to who was at fault in causing the accident, are more expensive insurance coverages than the liability and uninsured motorist coverages. Thus the majority of persons who now have only liability and uninsured motorist coverage will find their insurance premiums raised by the adoption of no-fault exclusive first party coverage. There is also an inequity in the dispersion of the cost under the nofault principle because the liability system underwrites the risk that the insured will negligently cause a loss to someone else whereas the no-fault principle underwrites the risk that the insured will sustain a loss to himself. Today's worst risk under the liability system--a teenage, unmarried, unemployed male with a poor driving record-becomes an excellent risk under the nOcfault principle and thus pays lower premiums whereas today's best risk-a middle-aged, emDICTUM is published periodically by the Texas Tech School of Law in cooperation with the school's Student Bar Association. Views expressed by the editor, staff or guest columnists do not necessarily reflect the opinion of either the university or law school administration or the Student Bar Association. Composition for this publication is by Tech Press, Texas Tech University. University photos courtesy of Texas Tech Information Office. The DICTUM will not solicit advertising but will accept such if it reasonably relates to the law school and the legal profession. All tendered advertising must be camera-ready. "Explain to me one more time how this is going to help update Jurisprudence in Texas." Editor-in-Chief .......... Nathan Hoffman Sports Editor ...... . .. Lee Griffin Photographers ...... Steve Guerra, Morgan Jones, Pete Andres Artist ................... Joe Crawford Staff .............. Anita Ashton, Larry Glazner, John Economidy, Frank Sullivan, Gerald Smith, Johnny Actkinson, Tom Bacus, Danny Taber, and Kevin Shannon. Faculty Advisor ..... " W. Reed Quilliam ployed, family man with a good driving record-becomes a poor risk under the no-fault principle and pays proportionately higher premiums. The teenager only insures one person against medical expenses whereas the family man insures his whole family; the teenager has no potential wage loss whereas the family man has a high potential wage loss; the teenager's inexpensive car creates less exposure than the family man's late model car. Different Compensation Policies The third major comparison, and in many respects the most important, is the total compensation which a person with the same injuries or same property damage might receive under the liability system and under the no-fault principle. No-fault first party coverage appears in exactly the form and scope of coverage that the insurance companies write, whereas liability insurance coverage insures against a liability created by the law. The law not only creates the liability but also creates the way the appropriate amount of full compensation for the harm suffered is to be measured. There is no variation in liability insurance coverage except as to the maximum amount which the insurance company will pay, which cannot be less than the financial responsibility law limits. The result is that the legal liability is several times the amount that can be recovered under no-fault first party coverages in any case of bodily injury or death, and the multiple rises as the injuries become more severe. As to property damage the legal liability will be approximately the same as no-fault coverage except that there is no $100 or other deductible amount as there is in most nofault coverages. Indeed, in injury cases the type of loss for which no-fault would afford coverage is called special damages and there are additional special damages which the liability system covers but which would not be covered by no-fault insurance. The general damages, totally ignored by no-fault coverage, are usually 3 to 10 times the amount of both types of special damages combined. No Fault Coverage Uniform Another factor in comparisons of (Continued on page 3) Students Help View Courses Students now have a voice in determining the Law School curriculum, as this semester marked the first time student representatives were officially permitted to attend and participate in Curriculum Committee meetings. The committee's new student representatives, although attending as nonvoting members, proved a valuable asset at their first curriculum conference by pointing up the need for more clinical education at the Texas Tech Law School. In response to the student comments and after a general discussion, the committee adopted a concrete proposal recommending the increased use of clinical programs in teaching law courses at Texas Tech in the future. Professor Robert Davidow appeared before the committee to present a recommendation for consideration. This proposal, if implemented, would initiate Texas Tech's joint participation with the University of New Mexico School of Law in the New Mexico Prison Inmate Program, opening the door for valuable law student experience and insight into the prison system. With some work remaining to be done on the proposal, the committee has recommended that it be adopted by the Law School administration as a two-hour course beginning this summer. Representing the three law classes and attending as non-voting members are 3L's Danny Taber and Richard Palmer, 2L's Hardy Burke and John Noble, and lL's Judith Larsen and Tom Ladd. DICTUM-APRil 1972 PAGE THREE No-Fault(Continued from page 2) MOOT COURT WINNERS-Among some 66 first-year law students who entered the annual Moot Court competition, four made it to the final round without a defeat. Standing left to right are winners Charles O. Grigson and Donald Wills and runners-up Susan D. Walker and Peggy Butler. With them is the moot court faculty adviser, Professor laurence Jay, second from right. Shellhaas- (Continued from page 1) Eminently Qualified Professor Shellhaas is a member of five bar associations, has been admitted to practice in three states and before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has served on numerous legal committees, both as a clinician and researcher, while authoring numerous legal publications. One curently in progress is entitled Cases and Materials on Texas Workmen's Compensation Laws. Eminently qualified, he has materially contributed to the founding of the Tech Law School. Shellhaas is nonchalant about his role as one of the Law School's original faculty. He simply says that everything was interesting and exciting in the process of establishing a law school. When asked about any early problems or difficulties in the development of the school, Shellhaas stated, "I was hired to teach, so I taught." Shellhaas believes that "the success of any law school depends upon the type of students it graduates." From this standpoint, in his opinion, Tech has been an instant success, and also a continuing success, considering the increasing number of law firms recruiting here. Shellhaas says that Tech graduates become productive members of firms at an early date and do not have to be trained for two or more years to become useful. This, he feels, has made the law school something of which he has been very proud to be a part. Reflections on Study Upon being asked to share some of his wisdom with students, the professor made the following observations. For new students, he stated, there is actually no "best" method of study: it is concentration on the case materials that makes the lawyer. He stated that briefing cases is useless if it is only a mechanical process. Students should understand the problem, analyze how the court solved it, and the reasoning applied. The case method, Shellhaas explains, is a study of the variations and exceptions of the applicable rules of law. The purpose of judicial opinions is to explain why, in the face of competing rules of law, a court decides that one rule prevails over another. The professor stressed that this is what the first year law student must learn. Shellhaas believes that the practice of law, if approached with the idea of service to people in trouble or need, is a most satisfying profession. "It is service to clients and the community that should attract the student to law. One should not take up the profession simply because it is lucrative." Wife Exemplifies Service Elizabeth "Bet" Shell haas, a vivacious mother of four, has identified with her husband's belief in service as exemplified by her four years' sponsorship of the Tech Law Wives. She says that it has been gratifying to see the organization grow and progress throughout her tenure. "Bet" is also a member of the Women's Faculty Club and the Lubbock Women's Club. Aside from her civic duties, she considers her primary role in life is that of a housewife. Although fond of Lubbock, the Shellhaases are excited about their move to Laramie because they will be close to most of their family. The Shellhaases plan to buy a ranch and settle down to do some serious horse and cattle raising. Although they plan a quiet rural life, both intend to remain active in university and community affairs. Mrs. Shell haas will continue with her community work and the professor will complete his writing and research projects. Both admit that they will miss Lubbock very much but they are looking forward to life on their new ranch. Colony Organized A colony of Phi Delta Phi professional legal fraternity has been organized at Texas Tech University School of Law. Formed 102 years ago, Phi Delta Phi is the nations's oldest and largest legal fraternity. Forty-five first year students and two second year students have organized the colony and petition for a charter was made in early March. Texas Tech will become the one hundreth inn in the international organization when the charter is approved. The colony selected Earl Warren, former Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, as namesake of its inn. Minimum entrance requirement for the Tech colony is a grade average of 75. Selected as colony officers were Gary Harrell, president; Lee Haag, vice president; John Huffaker, secretary; and Bill Fairbanks, treasurer. Faculty adviser is Professor J. Hadley Edgar. Delt's Status Gets Final OI( The Victor H. Lindsey Senate of Delta Theta Phi has received its permanent status as a fraternity on the campus of Texas Tech University after a year of required temporary status. In addition to its scholarship and service activities, the Lindsey Senate also functions as a social organization. This professional legal fraternity presently has 10 members on Law Review: Paul Smith, Lowell Lasley, Hardy Burke, Chris Inabnet, Thad Floyd, Charles Hurd, Tom Duren, Steve Hines, Vince Imbordino, and Don Collier, (1972-73 editor-in-chief). Delts are also active in other law school activities, with Richie Crews, Tom Schueller and John Mann holding offices in the Student Bar Association, Mike DeGeurin and Hank Anderson serving on the Judicial Council, and Nathan Hoffman serving as editor-in-chief of Dictum. Mike Irish, Mike DeGeurin, Richie Crews and Steve Scott represent the Delts on the Moot Court Board, and class officers include Paul Smith, Sam Chase, Mike Irish, Chuck Hawthorne, Johnny Atkinson, Frank Sullivan, Hardy Burke and John Noble. The Delts have received special help this year from alumni J. Q. Warnick and Quinn Bracket, Lubbock attorneys, and have enjoyed a high degree of participation by its membership. PADs Provide Drug Talks Initiate 32 New Members The Sam Rayburn Chapter of Phi Alpha Delta has been occupied this spnng with several community service projects in addition to their regular meetings and social functions. Several PAD's have given talks to area high schools as a part of the fraternity's drug awareness program. During such presentations the PAD lecturer informs students concerning the consequences of violating drug laws. There is no attempt to advise on individual legal rights, but rather the talk focuses on the post conviction aspects and future difficulties offenders may encounter. The Rayburn Chapter has also initiated a scholarship fund which will be available to any Tech law student. Based upon relative need, a $200 scholarship will be awarded to a member of each law class. A $100 summer scholarship has been approved also by the fraternity, to be first awarded in the summer of 1973. Funds for the scholarship program are being received from individual PADs, contributions from the chapter, and from interested alumni. Preliminary drafting of a non-partisan informational pamphlet covering the upcoming state and national elections has been undertaken by this fraternity, it was recently announced. Aimed at informing the new voters, the pamphlet will be distributed campus wide this fall. Initiation for the spring semester was held March 7 in the courtroom of the law school. New initiates include: James Alexander, Bobbie Ballard, Tom Bastian, Cecil Biggers, Peggy Butler, Bruce Cochran, Virginia Cochran, Jane de Wys, Claud Drinnen, Paul Fulbright, Mackey Hancock, John R. Hollums, Louis Jones, Morgan Jones, Alex LeFeuvre, Paul Lietz, John O'Boyle, Harry Osborne, Ted Painter, Albert Perez, Randall L. Rogers, Don Russel, Calvin Scholz, Celeste Scott, Joel Sheffield, Mark Shoesmith, John Simpson, Gail Truitt, John Westhoff, David M. Williams, William D. Wright and William R. Wright. The PADs plan to continue their monthly luncheon meetings and plans are being finalized to re-establish the speaker series in which local judges, attorneys and other distinguished guests are invited to the law school to lecture on topics of interest. coverage is that no-fault coverage is uniform in that there is a maximum coverage for each person which is uniform among all persons. The hallmark of the liability system is individualizing recovery amounts because they are individuals whom we are seeking to compensate. If we compare the eight year old boy with the broken arm to the Heisman Trophy winner quarterback with the broken arm, as over again to an 80 year old man with a broken arm, we notice that just as the arm won't heal in the same way in each case, neither will the boy or the man heal in the same way. They are each harmed in different ways with differing degrees of opportunities lost and differing degrees of adjustments that will be necessary. The result of the application of the no-fault principle is that no one will receive full compensation (the present legal standard) and the people who will receive the smallest fraction are those with the most severe injuries or the survivors of a deceased person. These are the persons who are most in need of full compensation yet they receive the smallest fraction of what the liability system measures as full compensation. When we add to this characteristic the fact, irrelevant under the nofault principle, that this person was not at fault in causing the accident, we see that he is both the most needy and the most deserving of receiving full compensation. It is ironic that under no-fault coverage the person who suffered only property damage would recover the greatest portion of his loss and that those with slight injuries would recover less than half of their loss and that those with severe injuries would recover only a small fraction of their loss. The no-fault principle is more protective of property interests than of interests in persons; it favors the shoes over the shoemaker, the material object over the creator of that object. The liability system clearly admits that man's worth is greater than the value of the objects he possesses. N 0- Fault Plan U ndercompensates Why does the no-fault principle result in such undercompensation in direct relation to the quantity of harm suffered? Because it is simply taking the same amount of insurance premium dollars and reallocating them to a group more than twice as large as the liability insurance dollar must cover, and it covers injured persons by identifying the most common denominator of such persons, which is medical expenses and loss of income by reason of being disabled from going to work. It intentionally ignores the individualized harm that is also common to each injured person but which is more difficult to measure in many cases. The fourth area of comparison of the liability system with the no-fault principle involves the effect of denial of the rules of personal responsibility which each motorist presently owes to every other person on the road. Those obligations, if breached, invoke a financial obligation to fully compensate the person negligently harmed. Throughout hundreds of years of Anglo-American legal history the right to swing one's arm has ended where another's nose begins. There is no question but what the rules of civil liability have had a salutary and prophylactic effect upon the activities of man, including his motoring activities. Because the fear of one's own harm resulting from a collision is as great as fear of liability to another, perhaps no driver will be less cautious than before by reason of the presence of the no-fault principle. However, it seems that a society which negates its rules of personal responsibility to each other person and thus denies the duties which each owes by reason of his reiationship to others whom he meets, is somehow, doomed to a lower quality of life. If the other fellow is more a threat to me than a fellow sojourner on the highway to whom I have responsibilities, there are no relational obligations on the highways of America. Is not the heritage of the individual dignity of every person somehow inextricably intertwined with the duties which each of us owes to the other? Perhaps the price of no-fault insurance is more than the flame; it may be the candle itself. (N ext issue: How the present system should be reformed) PAGE FOUR DICTUM-APRil 1972 Austin Suit Dropped S.A. Legal Program Set by TOM BACUS Dictum Staff As the scope of American society becomes increasingly complex and the volume of students being enrolled in colleges and universities continues to expand, the need for better education and legal assistance on American campuses has grown proportionately. In response to this need, the Student Association at Texas Tech University, with assistance from the Law School, has sought to provide a workable program of legal aid to members of the student body at large. Bill Scott, president of the Student Association, was responsible for initiating research into the feasibility of a legal assistance program for students similar in size and scope to many such programs springing up on college campuses all across the country. Aiding Scott in the initial work and planning are Hank Anderson and Chuck Hawthorne, both second-year law students. As originally conceived the program, after beginning operation, was to consist of approximately 20 upper division law student research assistants under the direction and control of a licensed attorney, who would be a full-time employee of the Student Association. The contemplated program has now grown to include some 20 salaried law clerks working closely with the attorney, handling preliminary interviev,:s and participating-to a limited extent in their third year of law school-in the actual presentation and trying of cases, as permitted in the 1971 Texas Model Court Act. It is envisioned that these third-year law student interns would have to receive approval from the Law School dean in order to participate in this aspect of the program. Legal Interns Contemplated A second aspect of the program will center around non-paid law student interns assisting in a research and investigatory capacity. Those volunteer personnel will number from 20-30 second or third-year students who may receive some academic credit for their efforts. Included in the scope of the proposed legal aid program for students are essentially civil actions involving contracts of campus-recognized organizations, consumer protection, employer-employee relations and landlord-tenant litigation. Some criminal work is contemplated, but only misdemeanors would be undertaken by the campus office while the more serious charges would be referred to the Lubbock County Bar Association. Counseling would be available concerning student rights and responsibilities, but individual students will be expected to retain their own counsel in litigation arising in such matters. Small claims representation and handling of city traffic violations are also expected to be within the scope of this program. Not included within the scope of the student legal counseling program are domestic problems including abortions, child support, divorce, alimony and property settlements. Also excluded would be suits against the University, suits between students, campus traffic tickets, and personal injury litigation. Committees to Review A committee consisting of two law professors, two law students, two Student Association members and one administrator will be responsible for reviewing the operation of the office of student attorney. The methods for selecting these voting committee members has not been revealed at this time. Ex-officio nonvoting members who will be in attendance at committee sessions will include the Student Association President and one Lubbock attorney, to be appointed by the Student Association. Another separate committee responsible for setting policy and insuring proper implementation of the legal services program will also be organized. Representation on this committee will consist of two law students with twoyear staggered terms and three Student Association members appointed for oneyear terms. The concept of a legal aid clinic at Texas Tech has been encouraged by Dean Richard B. Amandes of the Law School and by the Student Bar Association. Additional support in the form of a grant of $750 has been received from the Law Student Division of the American Bar Association, to be used specifically in the establishing of a student legal aid clinic at Texas Tech University. The proposed Student Association legal aid program has also been endorsed by the Lubbock County Bar Association. Funding Tentatively Approved The Office of the Student Financial Adviser at Texas Tech University has tentatively approved the payment of salaries to qualified law student interns out of funds provided in the Federal College Work-Study Program. Actual approval for employment shall be based on individual eligibility for participation in the College-Work Study Program and the availability of federal funds. Students would be paid at an hourly rate of $2.00 per hour with a work load ceiling set at 15 hours per week per student. As of the date pf this publication, the Texas Tech Board of Regents, in response to a formal Student Association proposal for the establishment of the office of students' attorney, had given contingent approval to the concept of legal aid at Texas Tech University. However, no further action had been taken pending the decision rendered in a case involving the Student Association at the University of Texas in Austin. The case involved implementation and funding of a student legal services program at that university. Pre-trial hearings were held March 27, with the primary issue being whether or not state funds, in the form of allocations to various student associations at statesupported colleges and universities, can be used to finance student legal aid programs. Since the primary source of funding for the Lubbock program will stem from the same state-allocated monies, no further implementation of the program could be attempted until final disposition of the Austin case. Editor's Note: The case in Austin was dismissed April 3 and the judge ruled that disbursement of such funds for similar "lf, as you say, the non-equal opportunity employers, and the free-enterprise profits system make you want to throw up, there may not be a great deal the placement office can do for you." legal programs would not be unlawful. Scott said that he will have the necessary committees for selecting th e licensed attorney and organizing the program in full operation and there is no reason why a legal aid program should not be established by this fall. Tech Conducts School Study The School of Law is presently conducting a formal self-study in conjunction with an all-University self-study undertaken for reaffirmation of accreditation for Texas Tech University by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. While the University conducts a self-study every ten years, the current self-study is the first in which the young School of Law has participated. A Faculty Self-Study Committee, appointed by Dean Richard B. Amandes and chaired by Professor Rodric B. Schoen, is working with a committee of law students to complete the Law School's Self-Study Report by May 1, 1972. The Student Self-Study Committee, formed with the assistance of Richard Crews, President of the Student Bar Asssociation, is chaired by John Noble. Formed on short notice, the Student Self-Study Committee prepared and circulated questionnaires seeking responses to questions in many areas of student interest. Reports prepared by the faculty and student committees will be combined into a single Law School SelfStudy Report and submitted to the University Self-Study Steering Committee, which has overall responsibility for the University's report. Information gathered for the Law School's Self-Study Report will provide a base for evaluating present programs, identifying problem areas, and planning for the future. Professor Maurice B. Kirk of the law faculty is a member of the University Self-Study Steering Committee and Professors Martin A. Frey and Tom Reese of the law faculty are members of principal self-study committees. The principal self-study committees are responsible for comprehensive reports covering operations of the entire University, but also in specific areas designated by the University Self-Study Steering Committee. SBA Officers Almost Elected S.B .A. spring elections held on April 14 were in a state of "limbo" at the time Dictum was printed, due to a pending law suit filed to set aside the unannounced election results. Don Wills and David Pittard brought suit against S.B.A. President Richie Crews and the election committee to void the election alleging that the conduct of the election denied procedural due process. Plaintiffs contended that on the date of the election an undetermined number of students who had failed to pay their dues were denied the right to vote, though such students had been previously assured by S.B.A . officials that they would be able to vote. The petition alleged that students relied on these statements and the voting denial was devoid of proper notice requirements of due process. The complaint further alleged that the election committee allowed an unascertained number of students to vote who were not listed in the treasurer's record book on the strength of the assurance of Tom Schueller that they had paid. Plaintiffs pointed out in their complaint that this was an arbitrary designation of who can vote and Tom Schueller was an interested party who was himself running for election. Law Sports Sweep Titles Law Hawks Triumphant The Law Hawks climaxed a triumphant spring semester for Law School "jocks" by successfully defending their basketball title in the Graduate-Faculty League, taking a 67-62 win over Brand X (the Physical Education Department team) in an exciting, down-to the wire championship game. Down ten points in the first half, the Hawks rallied sharply after the intermission to pull out the victory. Earlier, law students had carted away top Grad-Faculty honors in tennis singles and doubles and in golf doubles, and when added to Law Blue's pigskin championship in the fall the collection of titles clearly established the Law School as the dominant force in the GraduateFaculty League. Three Law School teams--the Hawks, Sled Dogs and Tortfeasors--compiled records earning them spots in the 6-team cage playoffs, the Hawks completing league play with an undefeated ledger and the other two clubs showing only a single loss each. In the playoffs the Tortfeasors lost in the first round to the Air Force, but the Hawks gained revenge for the Law School in the semi-finals by drubbing the Flyers 82-66. The Sled Dogs also made it to the semi-final round, where they led favored Brand X by four points at the half before finally falling 85-69. Law Dominates Tennis In the Grad-Faculty tennis tournament lL David Pittard was the singles winner, and Pittard teamed with 2L Mac Smith to capture the doubles title. Play by the Law School entries featured powerful serves and smooth ground strokes which carried them through both singles and doubles competition with relative ease. Tom Akins and Charlie Snuggs took the golf doubles title with a two-stroke victory in the finals over a duo from the Chemistry Department. Playing below their usual form, Akins and Snuggs had a handicapped total of 146 in the finals, played over the Meadowbrook Golf Course layout. In earlier matches they had approached this total on raw score alone. Law Well Represented Law School cage squads, in addition to the three teams making the playoffs, included the Nolo Contenders, Magnum C um Lagers, Nuisances, Accomplices, Kiwis, Buzzards, Smith's Legal Gems, and a team mysteriously entitled simply "Law." All, except possibly the latter, at least impressed the league with their names, if not with their jump shots. Records of the eight teams failing to make the playoffs ranged from a respectable .500 (in one or two cases) to an abysmal .000. It was reported, though not confirmed, that the Nolo Contenders set a league mark for the largest average margin of defeat. One snack-bar wag confided to the Dictum that "we had very little mediocrity among out Law School basketball teams . . . . they were either good or awful." Team Rosters Listed The Hawks, coached by Kevin Shannon, were placed by Wayne Crocker, Ed Kliewer, Larry Wood, Johnny Actkinson, Jerry Hennigan, Steve Anderton, Roland Saul, and Mike Sanders. Sled Dog player-coach Hardy Burke relied on stalwarts Joe Thigpen, Mac Smith, Charlie Snuggs, Dan Bird, Barry Blackwell, Dick Mock, Don James, Rick Graham, Joel Sheffield, David Posey and John Davis. The Tortfeasors' galaxy included Randy Sherrod, Charles Hurd, Chuck Hawthorne, Pat Hubbard, Craig Leslie, Carl Pro hi, Charles Acker and John Morris. Hawthorne doubled as coach except on those occasions when his enthusiasm for the game led to ejection from the premises. Team Roster Withheld Ater much furtive inquiry the Dictum has finally ascertained that co-coaches of the Nolo Contenders were Tom Akins and R. B. Pool. The names comprising that team's player roster, however, will be withheld pending our staff's research on the laws relating to libel and defamation. There was widespread speculation in the student body on whether the coaching contracts of Akins and Pool would be renewed.