|
Question.... (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
Aren't you like 23? Stop acting like a 12 year old. |
24, stop acting like your 55 haha |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
24, stop acting like your 55 haha |
Ok. |
|
|
| montana |
good question, i would say not the drunks fault. yeah, the person is driving under the influnce, but we don't know if this person is skinny or big and how much promille of alcohol they have in their blood. but, the person with the cellphone who isn't paying attention to the road is doing as much as someone with a impared view/vision to the road due to alcohol. if the person with the cellphone crashes into the other one, and it lives, they should get arrested and the person drinking should be arrested for just dui. in case of the cellphone person dying, the drunk one should just also get arrested for dui.
but then again that wouldn't happen since in the latter scenario the cops are really not going to look at it like omg the person couldn't see the road because they had a cellphone. they were going to think that the drunk person caused it because it's uhhm the logical thing. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
ok thats understandable |
Actually, bobby doesn’t need to impress me, he already has, and yes, I would love to do very naughty things to him and probably will some day. :)
craig, if the drunk driver had not been on the road (it's illegal for him to be on the road in the first place, so he is the one breaking the law first), then he would not have been at that place at that time the other driver had pulled out, therefore, the accident wouldn't have happened. you can't predict that someone else would have been there at that very moment to collide with the careless driver (the non-drunk one).
and remember you're in canada, the laws are different. |
|
|
| Slylee |
i still stand by what i said and that is that the drunk driver had no business being behind the wheel and someone died, and that's that. they caused that accident because they shouldn't have been there in the first damn place.
ok so what if the careless person wasn't messing with the cell phone? what if it was like an elderly lady (or not. just a typical middle-aged lady) and she just pulled out and didn't think the drunk driver was going that fast, and that she had time...and then bam. he slams into her and kills her? and there are witnesses saying that the "the lady pulled out in front of him". well! maybe if he wasn't so ing drunk, he would have seen ahead that some old lady was about to pull out in front of him, and he could have reacted faster. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by montana
but then again that wouldn't happen since in the latter scenario the cops are really not going to look at it like omg the person couldn't see the road because they had a cellphone. they were going to think that the drunk person caused it because it's uhhm the logical thing. |
That's why we in insurance commission accident reconstructions. The police do this as well. |
|
|
| Deeedeee |
the instance of intoxication takes the backburner. the one who failed to yield was negligent.
-just as you get *initially* pulled over for doing 40 in a 25, i don't think a cop can issue citations for failed headlites, expired tags, a baggie of pot in the front seat, etc. |
|
|
| DigitalPhoenix |
| wonder who Jamie hit this past weekend...LOL...:thepirate |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
craig, if the drunk driver had not been on the road (it's illegal for him to be on the road in the first place, so he is the one breaking the law first), then he would not have been at that place at that time the other driver had pulled out, therefore, the accident wouldn't have happened. you can't predict that someone else would have been there at that very moment to collide with the careless driver (the non-drunk one).
and remember you're in canada, the laws are different. |
Jamie, I handle losses in Florida, I know the laws there as well with regard to negligence. As I stated earlier the fact that the drunk was on the road is a remote cause not the proximate cause. Had the other driver not failed to yield right of way there would not have been a collision. The fact that the driver was drunk has no relevance as he was put into an inevitable accident situation.
Again, this has no baring on the DUI charge. |
|
|
| Slylee |
well the drunk's attorney said that when his blood results come back, it's not gonna be good.
oh and i didn't hit anyone. :p |
|
|
| Deeedeee |
| jamie, moral wins. stfu. |
|
|
|
|
