Hit from behind by drunk driver
Discussion
After some advice please.
I was on the a34 yesterday near Oxford and as I slowed down for traffic a car collided with the back of my enterprise rental car. To cut a long story short the driver at fault was 3x the alcohol limit. I have back and kneck injuries. Enterprise have not been much help. I’m after any legal advice etc.
I was on the a34 yesterday near Oxford and as I slowed down for traffic a car collided with the back of my enterprise rental car. To cut a long story short the driver at fault was 3x the alcohol limit. I have back and kneck injuries. Enterprise have not been much help. I’m after any legal advice etc.
Does your home insurance, own car insurance policy or employer provide some sort of legal advice line/assistance? If so give them a ring.
Failing that then find a solicitor who will take on your case in a no win no fee basis.
As others have said, you will need medical reports to substantiate your claim.
Failing that then find a solicitor who will take on your case in a no win no fee basis.
As others have said, you will need medical reports to substantiate your claim.
You need to be all over the Police for the official reading from the station. The roadside reading isn't admissible.
My wife was hit by a drink driver on the M6 and by the time the Police got their act together and got a sample he was under the limit and no further action was taken.
It was a s
t show from start to finish dealing with the Police and his insurers.
My wife was hit by a drink driver on the M6 and by the time the Police got their act together and got a sample he was under the limit and no further action was taken.
It was a s
t show from start to finish dealing with the Police and his insurers.wrencho said:
You need to be all over the Police for the official reading from the station. The roadside reading isn't admissible.
My wife was hit by a drink driver on the M6 and by the time the Police got their act together and got a sample he was under the limit and no further action was taken.
It was a st show from start to finish dealing with the Police and his insurers.
Not sure I follow the logic here. Why would the driver being under the limit be of relevance to your wife’s insurance claim? If the other driver was at fault, then him being under the alcohol limit doesn’t alter that - any more than him being over would affect things from an insurance perspective if your wife was at fault. My wife was hit by a drink driver on the M6 and by the time the Police got their act together and got a sample he was under the limit and no further action was taken.
It was a s
t show from start to finish dealing with the Police and his insurers.Your wife’s insurance company would presumably be able to use Police observations (and actions) at the scene, to claim from the other driver - much more evidence than would be the case in many other collisions.
wrencho said:
You need to be all over the Police for the official reading from the station. The roadside reading isn't admissible.
My wife was hit by a drink driver on the M6 and by the time the Police got their act together and got a sample he was under the limit and no further action was taken.
It was a st show from start to finish dealing with the Police and his insurers.
So if the police pull someone over for drink driving, if they collapse on the floor and pretend they're having a heart attack, they would get taken to A&E and get away with it?My wife was hit by a drink driver on the M6 and by the time the Police got their act together and got a sample he was under the limit and no further action was taken.
It was a s
t show from start to finish dealing with the Police and his insurers.tele_lover said:
So if the police pull someone over for drink driving, if they collapse on the floor and pretend they're having a heart attack, they would get taken to A&E and get away with it?
No. The suspect would go to hospital rather than custody initially, in hospital the police can send a force medic to obtain an evidential blood test (proving the doctor in charge of the suspects care did not provide any medical grounds objecting to the specimen being obtained and the suspect consented. If the doctor objected then there’s nothing more to be done, if the suspect did not consent then they are charged with failing to provide)The blood sample would then be sent off for analysis.
Ultimately the roadside breath test provides an indication but is not evidential, the suspect needs to be arrested and taken to custody for 2 evidential breath tests on a calibrated machine or have blood / urine obtained within custody or hospital. There is an unavoidable time delay between roadside impairment testing and an evidential sample being obtained, this delay can sometimes be upwards of an hour but cops will do all they can to obtain the specimen in a timely manner
Rusty569 said:
tele_lover said:
So if the police pull someone over for drink driving, if they collapse on the floor and pretend they're having a heart attack, they would get taken to A&E and get away with it?
No. The suspect would go to hospital rather than custody initially, in hospital the police can send a force medic to obtain an evidential blood test (proving the doctor in charge of the suspects care did not provide any medical grounds objecting to the specimen being obtained and the suspect consented. If the doctor objected then there’s nothing more to be done, if the suspect did not consent then they are charged with failing to provide)The blood sample would then be sent off for analysis.
Ultimately the roadside breath test provides an indication but is not evidential, the suspect needs to be arrested and taken to custody for 2 evidential breath tests on a calibrated machine or have blood / urine obtained within custody or hospital. There is an unavoidable time delay between roadside impairment testing and an evidential sample being obtained, this delay can sometimes be upwards of an hour but cops will do all they can to obtain the specimen in a timely manner
Rusty569 said:
No. The suspect would go to hospital rather than custody initially, in hospital the police can send a force medic to obtain an evidential blood test (proving the doctor in charge of the suspects care did not provide any medical grounds objecting to the specimen being obtained and the suspect consented. If the doctor objected then there’s nothing more to be done, if the suspect did not consent then they are charged with failing to provide)
The blood sample would then be sent off for analysis.
Ultimately the roadside breath test provides an indication but is not evidential, the suspect needs to be arrested and taken to custody for 2 evidential breath tests on a calibrated machine or have blood / urine obtained within custody or hospital. There is an unavoidable time delay between roadside impairment testing and an evidential sample being obtained, this delay can sometimes be upwards of an hour but cops will do all they can to obtain the specimen in a timely manner
If there is evidence of driving whilst intoxicated, there's no reason not to charge with driving whilst unfit ( in charge) notwithstanding that no samples have been taken. Been there and done it.The blood sample would then be sent off for analysis.
Ultimately the roadside breath test provides an indication but is not evidential, the suspect needs to be arrested and taken to custody for 2 evidential breath tests on a calibrated machine or have blood / urine obtained within custody or hospital. There is an unavoidable time delay between roadside impairment testing and an evidential sample being obtained, this delay can sometimes be upwards of an hour but cops will do all they can to obtain the specimen in a timely manner
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff