Drunk Driver the Innocent Party in an Accident?

[Baron Von Alders]

At the local car club bash last night & just as I was about to leave a car pulled out of the pub car park directly into the path of an oncoming car.

Jumped out of mine & called 999 to get all the services down as I & some of the others leaving the pub checked to see no serious injuries etc.

Now comes the interesting part, the oncoming car driver was allegedly way over the drink drive limit, but the other car pulled out on him & from where I was watching from, even Superman's reactions wouldn't have enabled him to react & brake in-time to avoid a crash.

My question - does the chap being allegedly way over the limit automatically take the blame for the accident, even though on the face of it, it wasn't his fault, or does the accident claim (blame)get sorted totally ignoring any alleged drink driving?

[JustinP1]

If one of the drivers gets convicted for drunk driving, then it is hard to see any other outcome than it being his fault.

If he doesnt then it is all supposition and it will probably get looked at in a more general way.

[carrotchomper]

Most insurance companies have a blanket exclusion of claims where the driver is under the influence.

can't see it automatically becoming their fault though.

[Sheriff JWPepper]

Baron Von Alders said:

At the local car club bash last night & just as I was about to leave a car pulled out of the pub car park directly into the path of an oncoming car.

Jumped out of mine & called 999 to get all the services down as I & some of the others leaving the pub checked to see no serious injuries etc.

Now comes the interesting part, the oncoming car driver was allegedly way over the drink drive limit, but the other car pulled out on him & from where I was watching from, even Superman's reactions wouldn't have enabled him to react & brake in-time to avoid a crash.

My question - does the chap being allegedly way over the limit automatically take the blame for the accident, even though on the face of it, it wasn't his fault, or does the accident claim (blame)get sorted totally ignoring any alleged drink driving?

With witness statements confirming that the DD had no chance to avoid the car pulling out then he will not be held to be at fault as such but he's stuffed on the DD issue.

Edited by Sheriff JWPepper on Tuesday 17th July 20:01

[WildCat]

Sheriff JWPepper said:

Baron Von Alders said:

At the local car club bash last night & just as I was about to leave a car pulled out of the pub car park directly into the path of an oncoming car.

Jumped out of mine & called 999 to get all the services down as I & some of the others leaving the pub checked to see no serious injuries etc.

Now comes the interesting part, the oncoming car driver was allegedly way over the drink drive limit, but the other car pulled out on him & from where I was watching from, even Superman's reactions wouldn't have enabled him to react & brake in-time to avoid a crash.

My question - does the chap being allegedly way over the limit automatically take the blame for the accident, even though on the face of it, it wasn't his fault, or does the accident claim (blame)get sorted totally ignoring any alleged drink driving?

With witness statements confirming that the DD had no chance to avoid the car pulling out then he will not be held to be at fault as such but he's stuffed on the DD issue.

Edited by Sheriff JWPepper on Tuesday 17th July 20:01

I think you right.

I think I recall thread on this site in past. About 2 year ago. I forget who. He post up that ban pass quickly fairly recently though.

He got sympathy even though most deplore driving whilst unfit.

He get this because he honest.. resigned to fate und the circumstance was one with which many understand even if disciplined not to.

He had drink. He row badly with girlfriend. He storm out in rage without thinking. It the red mist of deep anger. Perhaps instinct to run away from the conflict or distance before he slap her across face. Not pretty. But I suspect anger when fired with a drink can do this.

I know from foster child we had (still have - as he want to stay with us whilst he do his post 16 studies. He now almost 18 years. We teach him to drive/fund it. Encourage him after we manage to reign in his drink problem.). When he first arrive.. he drank contents of our drinky cabinet as we make mistake big time: we did not lock it/hide the contents from him. He drink Mad Doc's real ale stash und his prized single malts. He sound off about "our dire taste in booze", become angry for no real reason, punch Mad Doc in jaw und stomach, swear a lot before throwing up all over the Mad Doc.

We decide to persevere with him. It was that or career criminality as his potential future. He worthy of better really. He already done for TWOCcing/joy-riding. We get him "on the proverbial wagon". We guide gently away from booze but make it plain that drink of booze very much acceptable socially with moderation. I think making it seem "sassy/risky/devilish" make these kids yearn for the "buzz".. but vomit with hangover ist no buzz

Ist anecdote. Personal experience. But it was reality to us not so long ago.
It was hard work. We felt desperately we were losing a battle at times there. But when you foster kids like this one .. you agree to take on those problems all the same.

The PH member though.. he take off in huff. He drive past line of cars. Normal. But a car in L1 pull out on him without indicating. He not to blame. Police appear. He over prescribed limit.

I think his car got fixed by insurers all the same. He lost licence because he over limit at time. He not lose NCB over the repair. He pay huge premium for next 11 years because of conviction for being over limit though

[Mr_annie_vxr]

From what I have had happened before it probably will play out as follow.

As the chap was drink driving he should not have been there. As such he is at fault for the crash. CPS will not run a job against the other driver as the drink driver should not have been on the road. He will also not be able to claim any insurance for anything other than third parties in his vehicle.

Although it would appear the non-drink driver caused this its all about who was legally entitled to be on the road. As unfair as it may seem the fact remains the chap was drink driving and as such had no business on the road at all.

[imbecile]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

From what I have had happened before it probably will play out as follow.

As the chap was drink driving he should not have been there. As such he is at fault for the crash. CPS will not run a job against the other driver as the drink driver should not have been on the road. He will also not be able to claim any insurance for anything other than third parties in his vehicle.

Although it would appear the non-drink driver caused this its all about who was legally entitled to be on the road. As unfair as it may seem the fact remains the chap was drink driving and as such had no business on the road at all.

This logic is complete boocks though!

[Chrispy Porker]

Surely, if you are doing something you know you shouldn't, which is inherently dangerous, and something untoward happens you only have yourself to blame ?

[imbecile]

Chrispy Porker said:

Surely, if you are doing something you know you shouldn't, which is inherently dangerous, and something untoward happens you only have yourself to blame ?

An interesting question, actually.

For instance, I think trespassers or burglars shouldn't have any legal rights whatsoever. But this is becuase they are preventing the owner of the premises from giving them a proper safety briefing.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect traffic on a road. The person that pulled out on this driver, importantly, has no control over the traffic on the road and thus can reasonably expect there to be approaching cars. The driver hitting him being drunk is immaterial if a sober person would have done the same. The incident remains the fault of the driver violating priority.

[Deva Link]

Who knows what will actually happen, but what should happen (assuming the account described is accurate) is the driver who pulled out is 100% at fault, and he should be prosecuted.
The driver on the main road will get done for drunk driving, but, as he is the third party, his claim against the other driver should be fine. These comments about not being able to claim if you're over the limit are not true of all insurance companies - mine makes no such exclusion, even if claiming for damage to my own vehicle.

[mikechandler]

Regardless of whether the person on the main road was over the limit or not, from the circumstances above, the driver of the vehicle pulling out from the car park will be at fault. Yes the driver shouldn't have been driving if he is over the limit but he was and he was there to be seen.

The drink driving element of the claim will be dealt with under criminal law, the claim for the repairs etc will be dealt with as a civil matter.