|
Question.... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
i lol at this thread and the comments contained within
in nyc, subways get you to where you want to go, even when you're drunk! |
what happens when the subway driver is drunk, will he be able to steer?
:stongue: |
|
|
| EXTREMUM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
ok but can we all agree that the accident would never have happened if the drunk person wasn't on the road to begin with? |
Yes and no - abstain. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
more then you |
No, you're not. |
|
|
| kid nyce |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
what happens when the subway driver is drunk, will he be able to steer?
:stongue: |
i'd be more concerned if the subway driver wasn't drunk - this is nyc bitchez, happens |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
in canada, dangerous driving (which can be considered driving with a cell phone, and disobeying the rules of the road) caries a criminal record charge as well as impaired driving.
just because someone is drunk doesnt mean you can put all the blame on them. Think about it logically. Thats like saying if someone is handicapped and they accidently run their electronic wheelchair into a mother whos carrying her baby with one hand and talking on her cell phone with the other, causing the baby to fall and die, IS totally at fault for the babies death. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
i'd be more concerned if the subway driver wasn't drunk - this is nyc bitchez, happens |
fo real |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
im trying to show slylee how cool i am so stop trying to outdo me in this conversation, she might want to have some sex later tonight ;) |
ok thats understandable |
|
|
| Slylee |
| nrg, it's "than" when using comparitive adjectives and adverbs. |
|
|
| kid nyce |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
nrg, it's "than" when using comparitive adjectives and adverbs. |
where did you look that up? i need a reference like that at work
=P |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
nrg, it's "than" when using comparitive adjectives and adverbs. |
sorry, |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
ok so craig, if mrs. hazard was driving along, completely sober, and you happened to call her on her cell phone, and she looks down for a minute to look for her cell phone while she's pulling out onto a street (she gave a quick glance and thought the coast was clear), and gets creamed by someone who was doing maybe 10 mph over the speed limit, and was drunk, and mrs. hazard (god forbid) dies in the accident, would you honestly sit there and think it was her fault just because she pulled out in front of the drunk? |
In the senerio you describe there is no question that Mrs. Hazard's failure to yeild the right of way to the motorist who had previously established control of the roadway prior to attempting to enter traffic would be the proximate cause. She would be deemed negligent for having failed in her duty of care to ensure she did not pose a threat to other traffic prior to entering the roadway. Legally she would be at fault for the collision, of this there is no question.
As I explained earlier, the fact that the other driver is impaired is moot in this instance. The test you need to look at is the "if not for" test. Would this accident had happened "if not for" the driver being impaired or conversely, would this accident still have happened in the driver was sober? If the answer is yes, the accident would have happened if the driver were sober then the impaired has no baring on negligence (read fault).
This is not to say that a jury wouldn't award damages agains the drunk. Jury's tend not to care so much for the law. In the senerio you describe it is highly likely that the jury would pay little regard to fault because they would instead focus on a the fact a beautiful young woman was killed by a drunk driver. As a result of the emotional way in which juries judge things like this they would likely afford at least 1% liability against the drunk driver. In joint and several liability jurisdictions such as Florida and Ontario (you did not specify where Mrs. Hazard had her collision but I know the basis for your question is Florida) 1% liability is enough to allow the agrieved party (me) to recover all damages awarded by the court from the drunk driver.
NOW, on the criminal side of things; because the driver was drunk he is guilty of DUI, possibly driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (depending on the limit and the BAL). He would not be guilty of vehicular homicide as under the "if not for" test the death was not a direct result of his intoxication.
You cannot advance the argument that "had he not been driving the accident would not have happened," that's just idiotic. By that logic no party would ever be at fault for any collision because one could always argue that the collision would not have happened if the party that was struck had not been on the road to begin with. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
ok thats understandable |
Aren't you like 23? Stop acting like a 12 year old. |
|
|
|
|
