|
Question.... (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
Since you want to play the what if game. Say the drunk were stopped at a red light and someone rear-ended them.... by your logic the drunk is at fault regardless of the fact that they took no actions whatsoever.
Morally you may have an argument that drunks should not be on the road but legally the driver's intoxication is irrelevent in determining who is negligent for this accident. Nevertheless, as I stated earlier a jury will find in favour of the widower BUT DO NOT BE FOOLED THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEGAL PRINCIPLE. |
|
|
| montana |
Jamie, none of them should be on the road. The one holding the cellphone is just as guilty as the one who chugged shots of tequila an hour before driving.
Granted the drunk one should really not be on the road, but it's annoying how certain people think that they can handle like a cellphone call behind the wheel. and even worse if it's more than just a cellphone, like in the cases where people try to put on makeup or put on lenses or even ing trying to do a multitude of these things while driving. I think that sorta thing is more shown in america with the fact that most people couldn't drive a stickshift even if their life depended on it. and without a stickshift you have one hand free (ye, well sorta) which grants you the possibilty to do this. i think i know drifted off where my point really was...uuuhmmm, yeah. Cellphone person is the guilty one. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
well the drunk's attorney said that when his blood results come back, it's not gonna be good. |
Indeed it won't be, especially for the criminal charges and the reasons I pointed out earlier with regard to jury trials and joint and several negligence laws as they exist in Florida. That's not the point, you asked about fault. No question the drunk is gonna get ed (or more accurately their insurer is going to get ed) but that has nothing to do with fault. I've given you the correct liability determination based on the facts as you described them. |
|
|
| Slylee |
here's a better scenerio of what i'm trying to prove a point about....
a drunk driver is speeding about 10 miles over the limit (pretty common right? we all do it. oh and btw, drunk driver has a prior DUI) and someone pulls out in front of the drunk. not because they were on a cell phone or whatever...i guess they were just slow and pulled out, thinking they had time, and they didn't. and the drunk slams into them, the driver dies on impact and the passenger is ejected from the car and air lifted to the hospital. the drunk is fine and passes a field sobriety test given by the cops, also admits to drinking earlier that day, but swears he is fine and that it was hours ago when he consumed alcohol (they didn't make him take a breathalyzer) and he allows them to draw blood at the scene for testing and is let go that day, with a homicided investigation pending. his car is impounded and he is instructed that he is not allowed to go to the car without a police officer present.
i'm sorry, but when that bloodwork comes back, i think the drunk driver is ed, yes? no?
even if they don't charge him with the fault of the accident, the dead person's family can slap him with a civil suit. can u go for jail time in a civil suit craig, or just money? |
|
|
| asfdz |
Of course the drunk driver is ed either way. Just sitting behind the wheel at a stand still while intoxicated gets you in trouble.
So, if an accident like that occurs, both will get their asses handed to them, figuratively speaking. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Since you want to play the what if game. Say the drunk were stopped at a red light and someone rear-ended them.... by your logic the drunk is at fault regardless of the fact that they took no actions whatsoever.
|
good point.
i guess my question is more moral-based to be honest.
i would feel bad and personally responsible if i was the drunk. |
|
|
| trewqy |
In most countries its a violation of the law to drink drive obviously.
Thus, the drunk driver who is involved will also be charged even if he didnt do . |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
even if they don't charge him with the fault of the accident, the dead person's family can slap him with a civil suit. can u go for jail time in a civil suit craig, or just money? |
The amount of alcohol in the blood will determine whether or not he gets DUI/driving in excess of (allowed alcohol level). Since he passed the field sobriety test he should be okay with the impaired charge but that and the excess of allowed limit charge are independent of one another.
Yes, the estate will be able to bring a civil suit for wrongful death and in Florida "Agony of Death". This means he can be sued for both damages to the family for the loss of the deceased - damages being non-pecuniar (loss of care guidence and companionship), dependency (loss of the income that person would have contributed to the family), loss of valuable services (housekeeping/home maintenance), and for the spouse loss of consortium ($ for not being able to get a little ass!). The Agony of Death claim is a claim made by the estate seeking compensation for the pain and suffering experience by the deceased during their death (few jurisdictions allow this but I believe Florida does... it's been a few years since I had a fatality down there). As I mentioned earlier, Florida is a Joint and Several liability jurisdiction. This means that the plaintiff can recover all of the damages awarded by the court from any party with at least 1% negligence as determined by the court. Juries don't like to attribute negligence 100% against the dead person so they will use any excuse to apportion 1% to the other party.... in this case the fact that he was drunk will be enough regardless of what if any influance that actually had over the collision.
No, a civil court case cannot result in jail/prison time. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| yea but the accident would certainly sober him up enough to pass a field sobriety test...the blood work will tell the truth. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
yea but the accident would certainly sober him up enough to pass a field sobriety test...the blood work will tell the truth. |
In most jurisdictions (I have never read the actual wordings of the laws in Florida) there is one charge for being impaired and one for exceeding the allowed blood-alcohol level. The impaired charge means just that.... driving while one's judgement is impaired. This does not necessarally need to be due to alcohol and one does not need to exceed the blood-alcohol limit to be impaired. The test for impaired is whether or not one's ability to operate the vehicle is diminished. If he passed the field sobriety test then it would be difficult to prove his ability to operate a vehicle was impacted. The blood-alcohol charge is independent of this, you can exceed the allowed blood-alcohol level and not be impaired (this is common with heavy drinkers). This is why there are generally two charges. |
|
|
| kid nyce |
this thread requires me to think and read wayyyy too much
synopsis while i sip my slurpee please |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
this thread requires me to think and read wayyyy too much
synopsis while i sip my slurpee please |
Summary:
Stupid pulls out from a side street infront of a drunk driver resulting in collision, stupid dies. Slylee asks, who is at fault?
Stupid is at fault because they failed to yield but the drunk is going to get butt4xed in a jury trial for wrongful death anyways because jurors don't know about law.
Slylee argues
Moral pwns Slylee |
|
|
|
|
