|
Question.... (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jeremy H |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
So if someone is driving drunk and gets in an accident, but it was the other person’s fault (like they pulled out in front of the drunk person), whose fault do you think it is? Especially if the person who caused the accident dies... |
:wtf: |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jeremy H
:wtf: |
| quote: | | So if someone is driving drunk and gets in an accident, but it was the other person’s fault (like they pulled out in front of the drunk person), whose fault do you think it is? Especially if the person who caused the accident dies... |
:wtf: |
|
|
| RJT |
The fault clearly lies in the hands of the people who both planned and built the road system for whatever city or highway the two parties were driving on. If they hadn't come together to create the road on which the accident occurred, the accident would never have happened.
I can't believe how dense you've all proven to be in this thread. :rolleyes:
:p |
|
|
| Slylee |
| how is it wrong to say that a drunk driver who is clearly breaking the law by being on the road in the first place is at fault, and that had the drunk driver not been on the road that day (like he shouldn't have been) the accident would not have occured? it's actually a fact that the accident(that very same accident causing the death of someone) would not have happened. it's simple. |
|
|
| kid nyce |
you're all wrong
public transportation FTW |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
you're all wrong
public transportation FTW |
lol
not everyone is so blessed to live in NYC. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
you're all wrong, except for RJT that is.
public transportation FTW - Unless you're in a piss small town where you can walk everywhere, ALRIGHT! :) |
Fixed. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
how is it wrong to say that a drunk driver who is clearly breaking the law by being on the road in the first place is at fault, and that had the drunk driver not been on the road that day (like he shouldn't have been) the accident would not have occured? it's actually a fact that the accident(that very same accident causing the death of someone) would not have happened. it's simple. |
Like I said before you cannot use this logic otherwise there would be no fault for any accident.... because had the person not been there to be hit then there would have been no accident. The key here is the proximate cause. What action started the unbroken chain of events that resulted in the accident? Was it the drunk driving... no, because if not for the person pulling out in front of him the drunk would not have hit them. It was the failure to yield as it put the deceased's vehicle directly in the way of the other driver who did not have adequate time or space in which to avoid the accident. This is what we call putting someone in the peril of collision.... esentially it means that you created a situation in which a collision was unavoidable. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
The fault clearly lies in the hands of the people who both planned and built the road system for whatever city or highway the two parties were driving on. If they hadn't come together to create the road on which the accident occurred, the accident would never have happened. |
I've actually successfully sued a city for faulty road design before... cost them $250,000. |
|
|
| kid nyce |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
lol
not everyone is so blessed to live in NYC. |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Fixed. |
get one of these
 |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Like I said before you cannot use this logic otherwise there would be no fault for any accident.... because had the person not been there to be hit then there would have been no accident. The key here is the proximate cause. What action started the unbroken chain of events that resulted in the accident? Was it the drunk driving... no, because if not for the person pulling out in front of him the drunk would not have hit them. It was the failure to yield as it put the deceased's vehicle directly in the way of the other driver who did not have adequate time or space in which to avoid the accident. This is what we call putting someone in the peril of collision.... esentially it means that you created a situation in which a collision was unavoidable. |
i disagree. the action that started the unbroken chain of events is the drunk getting in his car, thinking he was ok to drive that day. if u change one little thing about that day up until he got in the car, i believe it would have resulted in him not being at that intersection at that moment. say for example, i kept the drunk on the phone that afternoon before he hung up and drove home, things would have been different.
and i can use that logic because the drunk doesn't legally belong on the road whereas (if you use RJT's logic), the road does belong there (that was cute though). |
|
|
| Deeedeee |
| It's all cut and dry. "Morally speaking" is held at no regard. |
|
|
|
|
