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.