Drunk driving at fault question

[bsobel]

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.

As is usual with your posts, you are incorrect. As was originally stated, if the police arrive and cite a party for drunk driving, that party gets the fault (even if they are not 'at fault'). It goes to the logic of, they should not have been on the road therefore they 'caused' the accident.

Bill

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: 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.

what can i say that is what they were claimming, oh and they were suing me for medical.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: bsobel

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.

As is usual with your posts, you are incorrect. As was originally stated, if the police arrive and cite a party for drunk driving, that party gets the fault (even if they are not 'at fault'). It goes to the logic of, they should not have been on the road therefore they 'caused' the accident.

Bill

but who is to say that if they were not on the road someone else woudn't be there that was not drunk and still get rearended

 

[Triumph]

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.

Hmmm, a balance between my hatred for drunk drivers, and my hatred for red light runners. They both got more than they deserved, though.

This thread is kind of pointless, anyway, since these laws will vary from state to state.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: 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.

WHAT??

Could you maybe rephrase that?

 

[bsobel]

but who is to say that if they were not on the road someone else woudn't be there that was not drunk and still get rearended

Noone, in the situation that the person who got hit is lawfully on the road, it would be the person who actually caused the true accidents fault.
Bill

 

[glugglug]

Another interesting "drunk driving" tidbit:

In FL and probably other states as well, you don't actually have to have the engine running to be considered DUI. Technically you don't even have to be in the car..... "control" of the vehicle is determined by who has the keys, so if you are walking around waiting to sober up outside your car technically you can get a DUI. Never heard of it being enforced to this extreme though.

Also makes you wonder, what happens if you get pulled over for drunk driving and you hotwired the car?

I saw someone pulled over for drunk bicycling once...

 

[bsobel]

Could you maybe rephrase that?

If someone dies in the comission of a robbery, it doesn't matter who caused the theft the criminal is legally responsible. For example a cop is at the bank and attempts to shoot the robber, the bullet misses travels across the street and kills a bystander. The robber is criminally responsible for the victims death, not the police.

Bill

 

[TonyG]

I am pretty sure that, in Texas atleast, the drunk driver is considered to be at fault, pretty sure they mentioned that in drivers ed. Of course, they cop would have to realize you the guy was drunk to begin with.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Could you maybe rephrase that?

If someone dies in the comission of a robbery, it doesn't matter who caused the theft the criminal is legally responsible. For example a cop is at the bank and attempts to shoot the robber, the bullet misses travels across the street and kills a bystander. The robber is criminally responsible for the victims death, not the police.

Bill

Good explanation, but I still think you are mistaken.
I have a good friend on the force here (Suffolk, NY) and I'll try to get his input tomorrow.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jemcam
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.

I meant criminally of course.

Originally posted by: glugglug
Another interesting "drunk driving" tidbit:

In FL and probably other states as well, you don't actually have to have the engine running to be considered DUI. Technically you don't even have to be in the car..... "control" of the vehicle is determined by who has the keys, so if you are walking around waiting to sober up outside your car technically you can get a DUI. Never heard of it being enforced to this extreme though.

Also makes you wonder, what happens if you get pulled over for drunk driving and you hotwired the car?

I saw someone pulled over for drunk bicycling once...

I haven't heard of that one. In Oregon and WA state, "control" of the vehicle means sitting in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition. I have never heard of anyone getting a DUI just because they had their car keys on them. That would be one sick-and-twisted prosecutor and judge. The law has a purpose. Blantantly skirting that purpose in order to get a conviction is a miscarriage of justice.