Drunk driving at fault question

[erub]

My friends and I were having a discussion. I think that I remember at defensive driving that the instructor said that if you were legally drunk (above .08 here in TX for those over 21, and any alcohol for someone under 21) and you got rear ended (you were sitting at a stop light, say, and were doing nothing wrong) - that it would be your fault because you were driving drunk. Is my memory correct? What is the case in other states?

Even if that was truly the law, that the drunk driver is always at fault, I think that the drunk driver would have a valid case, espically if he did nothing wrong and that as usual the insurance companies would fight it out..also I think it would be probably bad judgement on the police officer's fault (if one was called to the scene), unless you were falling over yourself drunkedly, I don't think he would go about administering a breathlyzer. If the police weren't called, then how could the other person prove you were drunk? Remember, you did nothing wrong..

 

[Vic]

In the eyes of the law, if a breathalyzer test was not performed, and the driver was not cited for drunk driving, then as far as the law is concerned, he was not drunk and would not be at fault. Of course, if that driver later blabbed his mouth about being drunk, that would be a different story...

If a breathalyzer was performed and a citation (and most likely arrest) for drunk driving did occur, then that driver would be at fault. Why? Because if a driver is drunk, he/she shouldn't even be on the road at all. Insurance companies do not defend drunk drivers, even when they hold the policy (although of course they do try to defend themselves).

 

[Ylen13]

The car that would hit you would be at fault, it?s the thumb rule. The last car that hit always presumed to be guilty till otherwise proven not to be, but insurance could still fight. I got hit from behind and was fighting with them for 2 years even do I fast stopped at right light, they clammed I stop to fast.

 

[911paramedic]

Not sure if they are at fault for the accident, but they are guilty of DUI.

 

[Cuda1447]

What if they were both drunk eh?

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
What if they were both drunk eh?

the car that hit would be at fault in both case if they were or were not drunk, it don't make a difference.

 

[Hammer]

if the driver was cited for DUI, yeah probably. unless the other guy takes responsibility, you're pretty much screwed.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Hammer
if the driver was cited for DUI, yeah probably. unless the other guy takes responsibility, you're pretty much screwed.

totally confused and disagree. If i am drunk and i am stopped at red light and i get hit from behind how is it my fault. If i was drunk or not drunk the result would be the same i would be hit so i don't see why being drunk or not even comes in to the picture.

 

[Whisper]

I'm pretty sure I'd agree with the post stating that the drunk driver would be at fault, regardless of if he were hit or did the hitting. If you're above your state's legal alcohol limit, then you shouldn't be in a car in the first place...hence, the accident wouldn't have occured, as you wouldn't be on the road.

But that's just opinion.

 

[oniq]

If they are drunk and driving they should be at fault no matter what. There is no excuse for anyone being on the road and being drunk, you give up all your rights once you get behind the wheel intoxicated. Don't like it? Don't drive drunk.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: oniq
If they are drunk and driving they should be at fault no matter what. There is no excuse for anyone being on the road and being drunk, you give up all your rights once you get behind the wheel intoxicated. Don't like it? Don't drive drunk.

so if i get hi by a car whille being stopped at red light and being drunk i should be at fault even do i was not at fault in any way shape or form? Sorry but i think the law will not agree with you on this one.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: oniq
If they are drunk and driving they should be at fault no matter what. There is no excuse for anyone being on the road and being drunk, you give up all your rights once you get behind the wheel intoxicated. Don't like it? Don't drive drunk.

Cool..so I can go around rear-ending drunk drivers without worrying about anything?

Eh..don't think so..

 

[Howard]

Well, you could consider that the price drunkards pay to drive.

 

[Zenmervolt]

My GUESS, and I think it is fully logical, is that the driver from behind would be cited for "Failure to maintain a sure, clear distance" and the the driver who got hit would be cited for DUI. The drunk would not be "at fault" for the accident, but he would almost certainly lose his license because of the DUI, whereas the person at fault would "only" get a fine and some points on his license.

ZV

EDIT: This, of course, assumes that an officer arrives and administers a brethalizer to the drunken party.

 

[oniq]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: oniq
If they are drunk and driving they should be at fault no matter what. There is no excuse for anyone being on the road and being drunk, you give up all your rights once you get behind the wheel intoxicated. Don't like it? Don't drive drunk.

Cool..so I can go around rear-ending drunk drivers without worrying about anything?

Eh..don't think so..

No, but you should let the police know they are drunk. If you happen to rear end them, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[tcsenter]

Even if that was truly the law, that the drunk driver is always at fault, I think that the drunk driver would have a valid case, espically if he did nothing wrong and that as usual the insurance companies would fight it out..also I think it would be probably bad judgement on the police officer's fault (if one was called to the scene),

There is no 'automatic guilt' in any matter of law. That's why we have trials and courts and juries.

A case in Flint, Michigan a few years ago saw a drunk driver acquitted of vehicular homicide after hitting a woman walking down the side of the road. The woman herself was under the influence and walking down the side of the road at night wearing dark clothes. Two different cars swerved to miss her, but due to the obstruction posed by the first vehicle, the reaction time of the second vehicle wasn't quite good enough and he hit her then wrecked after losing control. That driver happened to be under the influence, and the prosecutor argued he was negligent because his reaction time would have been quicker had he not been under the influence.

The driver of the first car was called as a witness and pretty much secured the guy's acquittal by describing the circumstances, how he did not see the woman because of her dark clothes until he was nearly upon her, thought he would run over her but missed, etc.

The jury acquitted him of vehicular homicide but convicted on a simple DUI.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ylen13
The car that would hit you would be at fault, it?s the thumb rule. The last car that hit always presumed to be guilty till otherwise proven not to be, but insurance could still fight. I got hit from behind and was fighting with them for 2 years even do I fast stopped at right light, they clammed I stop to fast.

wait... was the light red? what was the guy behind you going to do, run the red?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: oniq

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: oniq
If they are drunk and driving they should be at fault no matter what. There is no excuse for anyone being on the road and being drunk, you give up all your rights once you get behind the wheel intoxicated. Don't like it? Don't drive drunk.

Cool..so I can go around rear-ending drunk drivers without worrying about anything?

Eh..don't think so..

No, but you should let the police know they are drunk. If you happen to rear end them, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Can you hit illegally parked cars? They shouldn't be there in the first place

 

[Triumph]

Wouldn't it make more sense if they both were cited? Driver A for being drunk, and Driver B for rear ending someone? Duh.

 

[Jugernot]

if a security guard shoots an innocent person while trying to apprehend you robbing a bank. It's your fault, even if you didn't kill them yourself.

Though, getting rear ended is a little different as you didn't cause it even by chance.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ylen13
The car that would hit you would be at fault, it?s the thumb rule. The last car that hit always presumed to be guilty till otherwise proven not to be, but insurance could still fight. I got hit from behind and was fighting with them for 2 years even do I fast stopped at right light, they clammed I stop to fast.

wait... was the light red? what was the guy behind you going to do, run the red?

well the insurance (aaa) was arguing i breaked to fast even do i was already stopped. It took 2 year for them to find the guy that hit me guilty even do the car that i hit after hitting testified that she saw me being stopped before i got hit.

 

[jemcam]

I personally know a guy that was driving while drunk, and another lady was killed when she ran a red light and he was found guilty of manslaughter and went to jail for two years. She ran the red light, and he was going through the intersection under a green light and he plowed right into her driver's door.

The judge's reasoning was that the lady never would have died since he was illegally operating the car, even though she ran the red light. Also, he could have braked and avoided the accident, or possibly seen what was happening before he entered the intersection. Thousandths of a second decisions make a difference in an accident. If his car had hit 1 foot behind the door, she would have lived.

The guy was 19 years old.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: Vic
In the eyes of the law, if a breathalyzer test was not performed, and the driver was not cited for drunk driving, then as far as the law is concerned, he was not drunk and would not be at fault. Of course, if that driver later blabbed his mouth about being drunk, that would be a different story...

If a breathalyzer was performed and a citation (and most likely arrest) for drunk driving did occur, then that driver would be at fault. Why? Because if a driver is drunk, he/she shouldn't even be on the road at all. Insurance companies do not defend drunk drivers, even when they hold the policy (although of course they do try to defend themselves).

Yes they do defend drunk drivers if you are talking about paying for damages incurred or offer up the limits of the polcy in the case of an accident. I'm talking about civil cases, not criminal. Criminally, the insurance companies do not.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: jemcam
I personally know a guy that was driving while drunk, and another lady was killed when she ran a red light and he was found guilty of manslaughter and went to jail for two years. She ran the red light, and he was going through the intersection under a green light and he plowed right into her driver's door.

The judge's reasoning was that the lady never would have died since he was illegally operating the car, even though she ran the red light. Also, he could have braked and avoided the accident, or possibly seen what was happening before he entered the intersection. Thousandths of a second decisions make a difference in an accident. If his car had hit 1 foot behind the door, she would have lived.

The guy was 19 years old.

did the guy have public defender lawyer?

 

[brxndxn]

Quote
Originally posted by: ElFenix

Quote
Originally posted by: Ylen13
The car that would hit you would be at fault, it?s the thumb rule. The last car that hit always presumed to be guilty till otherwise proven not to be, but insurance could still fight. I got hit from behind and was fighting with them for 2 years even do I fast stopped at right light, they clammed I stop to fast.



wait... was the light red? what was the guy behind you going to do, run the red?



well the insurance (aaa) was arguing i breaked to fast even do i was already stopped. It took 2 year for them to find the guy that hit me guilty even do the car that i hit after hitting testified that she saw me being stopped before i got hit.

I can't understand that.. There is no such thing as braked too fast. A person can slam on his brakes for whatever reason.. and a person that rear ends them is at fault for following too closesly.

I was in a wreck 4 months ago where a car pulled out in front of me illegally and I slammed on my brakes and came to a skidding, melting tires, smoking stop extremely fast. The car behind me smashed into mine. Since I did not make contact with the car in front of me, it instantly became the fault of the car behind me.

BTW, when a driver is drunk or not, it is always the fault of the person that caused the wreck. A person who is drunk but following the road rules exactly getting hit by a car that is driving wreckless does not make the drunk driver at fault. Even if the drunk driver is cited, it is still the fault of the wreckless driver.