A half-dozen states had adopted "no-fault" insurance laws; other states and the

Federal Government were considering doing so. "There are few hotter subjects facing the local legislatures," as WFB puts it, "and for once there isn't a clear-cut liberal-conservative division." Although our two guests are decidedly on opposite sides of the fence, this is less a debate than a thoughtful exploration of the concepts of "specific" and "general" damages, how the different sorts of no-fault laws might work, and whom they benefit and whom they harm. Mr. Lewis, for example, outlines the hypothetical of a woman who suffers a severe sprain of her upper neck and back, but no fracture. It may take her months to be able to pick up her child or do housework without pain, but "under even the Massachusetts bill, what she would receive is $380, which are her bills; but no matter how negligent was the person who injured her, she could not recover those damages for her inconvenience, her pain, her suffering, and her disability."