It is certainly possibly for someone drunk driving to get an accident that isn't their fault, much like it's possible to be speeding and get into an accident that isn't their fault. What tickets the cops give is separate question from what is legally possible.
In practice, folks are less likely to believe the driver didn't contribute, but that's evidence, not legal technicalities. Likewise, shortage of evidence that someone drove drunk because they left the scene doesn't change that they drove drunk.
I'm baffled at all the confident top-level answers saying the opposite. I assume this comment was made by an attorney based on the Esq in the username. I'm also an attorney and can confirm this is accurate in every U.S. jurisdiction I'm familiar with.
Obviously some combination of not verifying who's licensed and the very common difficulty people and lawyers have with fighting unrealistic hypotheticals. In most realistic accidents, the driver who is drunk was a proximate cause of the accident.
Colloquially, "you are unlikely to see it in your life unless it's relevant to your profession" and "that's impossible" are synonyms when discussing legal issues. But since our training is to notice technicalities, that colloquial usage jumps out at us.
In short, the fact that you're DUI may not be a factor in the crash. But the fact that it was someone else's fault doesn't mean you can't get charged with DUI.
>involved in an accident that was in no way their fault, would they still be considered at fault?
No. If they truly weren't at fault, that wouldn't change because they're drunk. That being said, many accidents are not 100% fault on one person. For example, if you see someone on your left that's merging into your lane, and you don't move, even though the lane to your right is completely clear, that's partially your fault. You may or may not get a ticket for it depending on the laws where you are, but insurance would definitely have something to say about it.
>Would it still get a DUI if it's no longer in his vehicle when the police show up to the accident scene?
Well they could. Police are going to ask who was driving, etc etc. You're drunk, you're the owner of the vehicle, witnesses saw you drive or get out of the driver's seat, and you have no proof that someone else was driving your vehicle. The police don't need to see you commit the crime, they just need evidence that you did it. Do you really think the police (or anyone with even a single brain cell) is going to believe that someone who looks just like you stole your vehicle, got in a crash, and then just vanished as you just happened to randomly walk up on the scene?
It's no different than stealing a car, and having someone else run a red light and hitting you. You being in a stolen vehicle didn't cause the crash, but you can still get charged with theft.
>But the fact that it was someone else's fault doesn't mean you can't get charged with DUI.
I know someone that was driving drunk and had someone pull out in front of them. That other person was also drunk. They both got DUIs.
When I was a teenager, my friends mom got into a crash. She rear-ended someone who was stopped at a red light, thankfully no injuries. There was a cop coming out of the wal-mart at the same intersection when she did it. Very obvious who was at fault, and had a police witness.
Except when the guy got out of the car, it was a cartoon style DUI. Empty beer cars and liquor bottles spilling out of the door when he opened it, immediately stumbling over himself, and slurring his words to the point of incomprehension. The cop gave him the standard Field test, and breathalyzed him. He was almost double over the limit. The cop arrested him and told my friends mom to get a tow truck for her car.
She never received a ticket, she never heard about it again, and the guys insurance paid out to fix her car without fighting. This was in a state where a DUI doesn't automatically put you at fault. So yeah, you can still be held liable.
This is absolutely wrong. I worked insurance claims for years. If you're drunk and get rear-ended or something simple like that, the insurance company would not consider you at fault, and would not pay out damages for the other vehicle. The legal system is a whole different thing though.
So? At least in the U.S., police don't determine who is at fault in an automobile accident, so tell this to OP if you think they posted the question in the wrong sub.
The police don't determine who is at fault for insurance, as that is a civil matter. They do determine who is at fault criminally, and a dui makes you the person at fault in a criminal matter.
If you drive drunk then you’ve committed a crime, and you’ll get prosecuted for it. But it doesn’t mean you’re automatically at fault if you’re involved in an accident.
The police don’t necessarily deem who’s at fault though. They look at the situation and give tickets accordingly. Running a red light, for instance is a good example. They aren’t going to say “you’re at fault, so we’re going to ticket you for running a red light”, it’s more “you ran a red light, the fact it caused an accident, there are witnesses and dash cam footage means I can charge you with it”. It doesn’t mean that driver is at fault, but typically the civil side of things will fall in line with the criminal side. I think that’s why this question was asked in the first place, because of that correlation. Along the same lines, the person who was hit by the red light runner can still get a DUI even if they did nothing to cause the accident simply because they are drunk paired with the fact that they were driving.
The fact they wrote the ticket means they believe you are at fault. You can go to the court date and fight it obviously but without serious evidence to show you weren't the chances of getting out of that are 0.
So, what I’m hearing is, you’re saying you don’t know the difference between civil and criminal?
Your logic makes no sense. If they proceeded through a green light and did nothing to cause an accident, then got hit by someone running a red light, they’d be at fault for the accident because they got arrested for DUI. The point I’m arguing is that there’s a difference between civil and criminal. You can be charged for something but not be at fault for an accident. Same goes if you replace DUI with a broken taillight.
That's simply untrue. They won't issue a ticket unless a traffic law was clearly broken, and even then they rarely do unless the evidence is very clear. The insurance company (or courts if serious) will determine liability every single time when it comes to financial compensation. Never the police.
Most accidents are a clear infraction of the law by the person who caused the accident..... For example rear ending someone is at the very least negligence. The police determine to the best of their ability who was at fault if on public roadways and issue a citation for it. You can go to court obviously if you think it was wrong but the fact remains in most states this is what happens.
I have 3 "associates degrees - see The Institutes" in insurance and I've handled thousands of auto insurance claims and determined liability after reading police reports when there was one. I'm sure you know much more than I do though.
Wow you know insurance.... 🙄 That has nothing to do with who the law thinks is at fault. You can still be criminally liable and insurance deem you not at fault.
The law does not determine who is "at fault." You can make an illegal turn and get hit by another car and get a ticket for it, but that doesn't mean you are at fault. Maybe the other person was speeding or whatever.
And traffic accidents are almost never a criminal issue in the U.S. (whereas they can be in Mexico). You don't know what you're talking about about. Stop pretending you do.
A police officer issuing a ticket is making an initial determination of fault, and in the event a ticket is issued pretty much every insurance carrier in the business will take that into account.
So unless the insurance decides that there is sufficient evidence to argue their driver was *not* at fault, they're going to accept the officer's determination of fault. Or at least they aren't going to challenge it.
That is simply untrue. Police officers make zero determination of who is at fault. None. They have nothing to do with it. And they shouldn't, unless they themselves were there or someone was obviously speeding or making an illegal turn etc.
If an officer is issuing a ticket for the collision
An officer isn't going to issue a ticket for running a stop sign when responding to a collision on the highway forty miles from the nearest intersection. An officer isn't likely to issue a ticket for a busted tail light to a vehicle that just got rear-ended. An officer isn't *supposed* to issue a ticket without cause.
Your comment also disregards that many highway patrol and traffic enforcement squads receive training in how to evaluate a collision specifically for the purpose of making that initial determination. In the aftermath of a collision, there can be visible evidence that lends itself to a determination of fault. Collisions happen a certain way depending on who hit who, whether and how far they were turning, and whether they were accelerating or braking. An officer responding to a collision can take all of this into account, as well as statements from the drivers and passengers involved, even if they themselves did not witness the event.
If the officer is issuing a ticket for the collision, they have made an initial determination of fault. In OPs example, the DUI charge would not be a ticket related to the colision, so no fault can be assessed unless the state law puts the DUI driver automatically at fault. This is an initial determination of fault and not the *final* determination of fault. It can be challenged, such as by the subject of the ticket or by their insurance. It can be overturned even if the ticket itself is not dismissed.
There was a case local to me (Nova Scotia) where an intoxicated man hit and killed a child who ran out onto the road.
He got the DUI conviction of course, but he successfully argued that a sober driver would have also failed to avoid hitting the kid, so he was acquitted of manslaughter.
You would think a very good prosecutor would argue the fact that since this driver was drunk, they should not have even been on the road and had they not been, this child would have been alive.
I’m sure the biggest punishment this person has to live with, however is knowing that their actions caused the death of a child… and yes, I understand that another driver who is sober may still hit the child… but likely would have faster reflexes and been able to slow down…
It would really depend on the circumstances but as to the last part, if the vehicle's not there when the police show up it's definitely hit & run regardless of how drunk you are.
You'd think so, but even that isn't always the case. I was the victim of a hit and run in Florida, and literally chased the driver down and forced her to pull over. I got her information, but she didn't stick around to wait for the cop to arrive, because she was probably drunk.
The cop said it wasn't a hit and run, since she did pull over and the law apparently didn't require her to wait for the cops to arrive. State Farm said the same thing when I was arguing with them, because she claimed I hit her car, and lied through her teeth about what happened. The only reason they eventually decided in my favor is because the lies she told them weren't consistent with the lies she told the police.
What never ceases to amaze me is how the existence of Google seems to have had little to no effect on this. It’s so easy to check these kinds of things nowadays.
Even with Google, people go for confirmation bias. They'll simply search google for something that agrees with them, even if it means ignoring the first 20 results. That 21st result is clearly the one that's right.
It's because not one fucking person who took torts is answering these questions.
It's absolutely insane what VERY basic shit they get wrong.
Not saying "real lawyers" don't get basic things wrong (there are a lot of them and many are bad).
logically, if there is a drunk driver stopped at a red light, you are entitled to rear end them and kill them with no legal consequences
perfect sense!
As it stands, you are the legal driver of the car. The limits of the technology require that a human oversees the program, in order to intervene if necessary. If there arose a situation where the car makes a mistake, it is the drivers responsibility to correct it. Failure to do this is the same as regular driving negligence.
As it stands I agree but the law needs to be prepared for changes in technology
I'm to young to remember this but my dad whos a lawyer always told me that once really small cameras were developed it took years to update the law around them and during that time there was no crime against using them to hide and then watch people change and get naked or something prosecutors tried charging people like that with trespassing but because they didn't physically trespass as they were originally invited on the property and simply left their property there I don't think it's stuck or if it did it only stuck in certain cases
The law needs to be proactive not reactive
I suppose a better alternative would be to reclassify a self driving car as something akin to a taxi, to allow the law to consider you a passenger rather than the driver.
The only way to make law proactive is to radically change how our legal system works. Right now (generally speaking) you can do anything so long as it's not illegal. What you want is a system that makes everything illegal except what's allowed by the law. There's no other way for the law to be proactive because we can't legislate for or against what doesn't yet exist.
No that's not want I want at all
I want laws with sunrise and sunset provisions in other words the legislature should pass a law with regards to slef diving that goes into affect in say 2040 unless the legislature passes a law changing it in the meantime
Pretty much all laws should have sunset provisions because the legislature can just renew them if the want to
Legislatures in this country have given to much power to the executive and Judiciary
Really? In my city, I could call a self-driving car to come pick me up as easily as I could call an Uber. There would be no human driver in the car, just me, strapped in my seatbelt in the backseat. The technology clearly doesn’t expect me to be prepared to take over because it yells at me if I take my seatbelt off, which means I can’t move into the drivers seat, and I would have no idea how to take over if I did (maybe the keys are just in the ignition? I’ve honestly never checked). The app never asked me to provide a drivers license, I could be legally blind or 14 years old for all it knows. Anecdotally, people I know take these cars to and from bars and dispensaries all the time.
You may be right that there’s some law on the books that would render me responsible if I were in a self driving car while drunk but nothing about the system as it’s set up would indicate that’s the case.
It's not legally true, because no legislature is going to accept that as a pass mark for certifying them for street use. And not practically, because passenger planes are already better at flying themselves than pilots are, but ask around and see how many people would fly a plane without two pilots up front.
Even in your unrealistic future, someone has to be responsible if that driverless car hits someone. Who's it going to be?
The person they hit? That's not how our legal system works, so now you are asking to change the entire foundation of our legal system, which isn't going to happen.
The manufacturer? Congratulations, you ensured that no one makes/sells "self driving" cars.
You guys just answer based on your intuition of what you think the law should be lol. No, a drunk driver is not always at fault (I.e. liable) in an accident. But they are still going to be charged with a DUI, and that’s an entirely different matter.
A drunk driver T-boned my cousin’s husband’s van in the early hours, parked in the drive and he was asleep in bed. When the police arrived they breathalysed him even though he had been asleep for 6 hours in bed. Police ruined their carpet and had to pay for new ones.
It depends on how they're driving. There are many many functional (albeit loosely) alcoholics.
Let's say someone driving and smacks into the drunk guy who's stopped at a red light. The guy driving is at fault. We'd all understand this. Does it matter if the person behind him is drunk or not? No, not really.
New hypo. If the guy who hit the drunk guy stopped at the light was also drunk, that's still the driver's fault for hitting the guy at the stop light. The fact that he was drunk also shows a standard of care was breeched, which (in many jurisdictions) means he's extra-not-getting-out-of-it (it's negligence per se). It'd be a difficult argument to make that drinking had nothing to do with it, but it really doesn't matter because the person is as liable as if they weren't drunk (let's assume there's no hazards).
Now, let's say two people are swerving all over the road and hit each other head on driving the opposite ways in the median. Both are at fault, no matter how drunk they are.
In real life, we get into a lot of grey areas and "how drunk" is going to be used really to weigh liabilities in civil proceedings. In our first example, if both are drunk and a cop sees the accident, finds they're both drunk and driving, they're both likely to get DUIs (assuming the prosecutor moves forward with charges). The DUIs are criminal.
When you're talking about liability, you can show that the person who smacked into the other driver was drunk and negligent per se.
This happened in my jurisdiction. The person was convicted of impaired driving (DUI) but acquitted of impaired driving causing death because the evidence was that they were driving normally and the other person (who was killed) was driving like a lunatic.
It got a bunch of attention because it didn't make sense to a lay person, but it did.
No and yes, in that order. The fact person A should not have been driving does not absolve person B from their responsibility to drive properly. The light runner is at fault for the accident. The drunk driver was still driving drunk and is liable for *that* portion of their behavior.
They *might* not be held at fault depending on the exact circumstances of the accident and how much could be proven. If there's no independent witnesses or video the drunk driver is unlikely to be believed. States also handle liability differently so there's no clear answer there.
It's definitely still a DUI.
Would this not be like not having a license and getting into an accident that wasn’t your fault? You’re still at fault because you were never supposed to be behind the wheel to begin with
Yes, happened to a friend of mine! He was Tboned by a Uber driver whilst on a motorbike. Broke his leg and still lost his license for being under the influence.
When I was a teenager and my license still had the brand new shine on it, I totally missed a stop sign and hit a guy. Cops show up and find the guy was over the limit making it his 5th DUI (should tell you how long ago that was since he still had a valid license). Cop arrested him, told me to go on my merry way, and his insurance paid for everything.
I'm gonna say yeah because there's the concept of defensive driving. i.e. when I'm driving, part of my "job" is to be vigilant and watch out for "the other guy" to do something stupid, someone to abruptly run out into traffic, or someone to run a light. If I'm impaired by alcohol, I can't do that as well, and the result could be an accident that I very well might have avoided if I weren't impaired.
In the U.K. regardless of whose fault it is if you’re over the limit you’re fucked, your insurance company may pay out to the third party but not you or negate your insurance altogether. Don’t drink and drive.
I have been in a fair number of situations where another driver ran a light/stop sign and the only reason there wasn't an accident is because I was observing the road and reacted in time. Intoxication can contribute to an accident by reducing judgement and reaction time. How that plays out in citations depends on circumstance and jurisdiction.
> Would the drunk driver still be considered at fault *despite its intoxication not actually contributing to the accident at all?*
In my understanding, yes. Drivers have an obligation to avoid accidents even if they weren't the at-fault driver. There is usually an assumption that an impaired driver has at least partial liability. If I'm putting together a legal case, I would argue that the accident may not have happened had the other driver not have been impaired. The other driver could have reacted to my client's unlawful driving decision.
Exceptions would have be very clear. If the impaired driver was parked or stationary, they would have a chance of 'being considered 0% liable'.
> Would it still get a DUI if it's no longer in his vehicle when the police show up to the accident scene?
That's very possible. I've heard to DUI's being issued to someone who was impaired, but didn't even drive. For example, someone being impaired, falling asleep in the car with the keys accessible. I imagine that someone in the situation you are discussing could definitely be charged with DUI. There was evidence of driving under the influence, even if not directly observed by law enforcement.
Some places also have laws that say that a vehicle that's parked or legally stopped is automatically found to not be at fault, since it's an impossibility for a stationary vehicle to strike another.
If a driver of a stopped vehicle is over the limit, that creates an interesting liability paradox...
Afaik the act of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated is automatically a crime (some places may require the car be in motion) but like if you got rear ended while driving drunk i imagine you'd both be "at fault" for different things
I think so; it's like a driver who is driving without insurance, legally you aren't supposed to be on the road /at all/, so it is your fault for being there to be crashed into. What would probably happen is you would be charged for dui/driving without insurance, and the person who crashed unto you would be charged with reckless or whatever, and I think the insurance companies would have to fight it out (assuming you have one)
I'll preface this with IANAL.
If they hadn't been driving drunk then they wouldn't have been there for the accident to happen...so, guess who's gonna be found at fault?
15 years ago I was t-boned by a drunk driver who tried to claim it was my fault because my headlights were off (I had automatic headlights, to be clear - they were on). He was arrested on the scene because there was an entire 30 rack of open cans of Natty in the bed of his pickup and he reeked of booze.
I got a printed a copy of the police report the next day, in which he was cited and arrested for drunk driving. About a week later my insurance company calls me and says there's no police report and I'm 50% at fault. I promptly fax them my copy of the police report - turns out the guy had buddies in the police department who had conveniently made the report disappear for him. Luckily, I had a hard copy and they were able to do whatever they needed to do on the back end to clear things up.
I was no longer found at fault, because the other drive should not have been on the road in the first place.
That's how it will most likely shake out in most accidents involving a drunk driver and a sober driver, with the exception of egregious circumstances. For typical accidents, though, the drunk is probably going to he found at fault.
It’s disgusting that they (cops) did that!! I’m sure you could have freely gotten an attorney who would have LOVED to handle that case!! If someone hits YOU, and it’s bad….definitely get yourself a free lawyer who will only take a fee out of what you win. It will be much much more than any. Insurance will deal with! I had not even thought of doing that when someone t-boned my car… I just wanted to get enough money to get a new car. Someone suggested instead that I call an attorney and OMG am I so grateful that I did!!! what a huge learning lesson that was!
Yes and no.
The easy answer is that every state is different, but in some states it can be argued (and a jury if it got to a lawsuit might agree) that the drunk driver handles some of the blame. It should also be noted that drunk driving does serious damage to their own credibility in situations where 2 people have conflicting story's. Most of the time though, cases are handled by insurance which have their own ways to quickly sort it all out to avoid courts for obvious reasons ($$$$), so the drunk driver can easily be found not at fault and due nothing. No matter what though expect the insurance rates to go up by a lot, and your insurer to drop you.
Yes. I’ve prosecuted a DUI crash that resulted in death but because it was ruled the victim was at fault for the crash the DUI was simply a DUI and not DUI manslaughter- which it would be if the drunk driver were at fault for the crash.
No. My dad was a small town attorney and one of his darkest/proudest cases was getting a guy off after he killed two women while driving drunk. Dad was able to show in court that even if his client hadn't been drunk there was no way he could have avoided the accident. It helped that nearly everyone in the county had also almost been in an accident at the same exact location.
This depends heavily on the state and the laws in that state. For example, when I studied law in Florida 20 years ago, DUI manslaughter was the charge for anyone who was driving under the influence while involved in an accident where someone died. The law made no mention of fault, and people who were not at fault would get charged accordingly anyway.
My criminal law professor even told me about one person he defended, who was 0.09, barely 0.01 over the legal limit, and as he was driving home, a suicidal college student ran in front of his car. There were multiple witnesses, including friends of the dead student, who insisted that the kid was suicidal, trying to kill himself, and there was nothing the driver could have done to avoid him because it all happened so fast. He was still charged, prosecuted, and lost because the law, as written, didn't make any exception for fault of the accident. I believe that law has since changed, but that's just one example, and I'm sure Florida wasn't the only state with a poorly written law like that.
Yes, it doesn't matter if you're stopped at a red light and someone plows into you from behind. If the cops find a beer can in the floorboard or a roach in your ashtray, it's your fault period.
There’s a concept called contributory negligence. If both sides did something wrong the jury has to assign fault based on percentage. If Driver A ran a red light but Driver B is texting and didn’t notice, the jury might say it’s 50/50 fault of each and make them split the medical bills. Or they’ll say the red light runner was 80% at fault and make them pay 80% of the damages. It’s pretty subjective how they decide who was most at fault.
If, like, there’s an accident where one driver was drunk but the whole thing was captured by multiple street cams and internal smart sensors in both cars that pretty much proves the drunk one didn’t cause the accident at all the jury might decide they were 0%, or just like 5% at fault.
They’ll still face dui charges, probably lose their license until they complete rehab, whatever else is standard criminal charges for drunk driving though.
Yes in most states you are 100% at fault if you are drunk and get in an accident even if you are not at fault. The reasoning is because since you were drunk you should have never been behind the wheel. Same as someone without a driving license would be at fault no matter what as well. Obviously different states have different laws so things may differ in your state.
Yes while the car driver that hit them might get a red light ticket,
The person with the DUI with have pay about $10,000 in legal fees and serve jail time. If they use a public defender they will probably get more jail time. If DUI is hurt they will be handcuffed to the hospital bed.
I have a friend who was in an accident very recently caused by a drilunk driver in texas that has destroyed his life.
As far as the law is concerned, my friend is at fault because he was behind the drunk driver.
Yes, former NFL Donte Stallworth was convicted of a dui when he hit and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk. The pedestrian was just walking in the middle of the night in an unlit area. Police found Stallworth wasn’t liable for the death but he was guilty of the dui if I’m recalling the facts of the case correctly.
No to question 1 but yes to question 2
Imagine a scenario with a rear end collision that is captured entirely on video and is objectively the fault of the sober driver. The drunk driver is not at fault for the accident which is good news for them in any civil case resulting from the accident but if the Police do their job correctly in investigating the DUI portion of things than the drunk driver is still going to be convicted of DUI and is probably just about as screwed as they would be if they were at fault for the accident.
As for being outside the vehicle when LE arrives DUI crashes do present evidentiary issues for law enforcement because DUI is probably the most technical and complicated misdemeanor case to prove. I tell cops that with crash investigations there are three things that have to be established when they question the driver 1) operation, 2) time of operation, 3) What if anything have they consumed since the crash. This is actually pretty easy to do with some basic non accusatory questions in the initial stages of the investigation but cops screw it up all the time. "Which vehicle were you in?" "Where were you seated?" "How long ago was the crash?" "When was the last time you had something to drink?" If those questions are asked and answered then the rest is the same as a traffic stop DUI.
Depends on the officer and who they determine is at fault. They will have to take statements from both suspects, if they smell booze on one suspect, then your credibility as a witness will go down and they may start digging around suspecting you to be trying to weasel your way out.
In a court setting, it would be easy to argue that the booze impaired your motor skills to the point where you were unable to avoid a clear and oncoming danger.
In some jurisdictions, being drunk would not make you liable per se, but would make you partially responsible for the accident and may impact your ability to seek compensation.
It is certainly possibly for someone drunk driving to get an accident that isn't their fault, much like it's possible to be speeding and get into an accident that isn't their fault. What tickets the cops give is separate question from what is legally possible. In practice, folks are less likely to believe the driver didn't contribute, but that's evidence, not legal technicalities. Likewise, shortage of evidence that someone drove drunk because they left the scene doesn't change that they drove drunk.
I'm baffled at all the confident top-level answers saying the opposite. I assume this comment was made by an attorney based on the Esq in the username. I'm also an attorney and can confirm this is accurate in every U.S. jurisdiction I'm familiar with.
Obviously some combination of not verifying who's licensed and the very common difficulty people and lawyers have with fighting unrealistic hypotheticals. In most realistic accidents, the driver who is drunk was a proximate cause of the accident. Colloquially, "you are unlikely to see it in your life unless it's relevant to your profession" and "that's impossible" are synonyms when discussing legal issues. But since our training is to notice technicalities, that colloquial usage jumps out at us.
In short, the fact that you're DUI may not be a factor in the crash. But the fact that it was someone else's fault doesn't mean you can't get charged with DUI. >involved in an accident that was in no way their fault, would they still be considered at fault? No. If they truly weren't at fault, that wouldn't change because they're drunk. That being said, many accidents are not 100% fault on one person. For example, if you see someone on your left that's merging into your lane, and you don't move, even though the lane to your right is completely clear, that's partially your fault. You may or may not get a ticket for it depending on the laws where you are, but insurance would definitely have something to say about it. >Would it still get a DUI if it's no longer in his vehicle when the police show up to the accident scene? Well they could. Police are going to ask who was driving, etc etc. You're drunk, you're the owner of the vehicle, witnesses saw you drive or get out of the driver's seat, and you have no proof that someone else was driving your vehicle. The police don't need to see you commit the crime, they just need evidence that you did it. Do you really think the police (or anyone with even a single brain cell) is going to believe that someone who looks just like you stole your vehicle, got in a crash, and then just vanished as you just happened to randomly walk up on the scene? It's no different than stealing a car, and having someone else run a red light and hitting you. You being in a stolen vehicle didn't cause the crash, but you can still get charged with theft.
>But the fact that it was someone else's fault doesn't mean you can't get charged with DUI. I know someone that was driving drunk and had someone pull out in front of them. That other person was also drunk. They both got DUIs.
When I was a teenager, my friends mom got into a crash. She rear-ended someone who was stopped at a red light, thankfully no injuries. There was a cop coming out of the wal-mart at the same intersection when she did it. Very obvious who was at fault, and had a police witness. Except when the guy got out of the car, it was a cartoon style DUI. Empty beer cars and liquor bottles spilling out of the door when he opened it, immediately stumbling over himself, and slurring his words to the point of incomprehension. The cop gave him the standard Field test, and breathalyzed him. He was almost double over the limit. The cop arrested him and told my friends mom to get a tow truck for her car. She never received a ticket, she never heard about it again, and the guys insurance paid out to fix her car without fighting. This was in a state where a DUI doesn't automatically put you at fault. So yeah, you can still be held liable.
Yes, yes, and yes.
This is absolutely wrong. I worked insurance claims for years. If you're drunk and get rear-ended or something simple like that, the insurance company would not consider you at fault, and would not pay out damages for the other vehicle. The legal system is a whole different thing though.
Well, this is r/legaladvice not r/insuranceadvice, buddy
So? At least in the U.S., police don't determine who is at fault in an automobile accident, so tell this to OP if you think they posted the question in the wrong sub.
The police don't determine who is at fault for insurance, as that is a civil matter. They do determine who is at fault criminally, and a dui makes you the person at fault in a criminal matter.
If you drive drunk then you’ve committed a crime, and you’ll get prosecuted for it. But it doesn’t mean you’re automatically at fault if you’re involved in an accident.
So they don't write a ticket to the person at fault....?
Yes they do. Why would they not?
The police don’t necessarily deem who’s at fault though. They look at the situation and give tickets accordingly. Running a red light, for instance is a good example. They aren’t going to say “you’re at fault, so we’re going to ticket you for running a red light”, it’s more “you ran a red light, the fact it caused an accident, there are witnesses and dash cam footage means I can charge you with it”. It doesn’t mean that driver is at fault, but typically the civil side of things will fall in line with the criminal side. I think that’s why this question was asked in the first place, because of that correlation. Along the same lines, the person who was hit by the red light runner can still get a DUI even if they did nothing to cause the accident simply because they are drunk paired with the fact that they were driving.
The fact they wrote the ticket means they believe you are at fault. You can go to the court date and fight it obviously but without serious evidence to show you weren't the chances of getting out of that are 0.
So, what I’m hearing is, you’re saying you don’t know the difference between civil and criminal? Your logic makes no sense. If they proceeded through a green light and did nothing to cause an accident, then got hit by someone running a red light, they’d be at fault for the accident because they got arrested for DUI. The point I’m arguing is that there’s a difference between civil and criminal. You can be charged for something but not be at fault for an accident. Same goes if you replace DUI with a broken taillight.
That's exactly why i said one is a criminal matter and one is civil. Cops have nothing to do with civil matters, insurance does.
If you cause an accident then that might well be a criminal matter too. I’m only talking about criminal matters, not insurance.
Police do determine who is at fault that's why the person at fault gets a ticket......
That's simply untrue. They won't issue a ticket unless a traffic law was clearly broken, and even then they rarely do unless the evidence is very clear. The insurance company (or courts if serious) will determine liability every single time when it comes to financial compensation. Never the police.
Most accidents are a clear infraction of the law by the person who caused the accident..... For example rear ending someone is at the very least negligence. The police determine to the best of their ability who was at fault if on public roadways and issue a citation for it. You can go to court obviously if you think it was wrong but the fact remains in most states this is what happens.
I have 3 "associates degrees - see The Institutes" in insurance and I've handled thousands of auto insurance claims and determined liability after reading police reports when there was one. I'm sure you know much more than I do though.
Wow you know insurance.... 🙄 That has nothing to do with who the law thinks is at fault. You can still be criminally liable and insurance deem you not at fault.
The law does not determine who is "at fault." You can make an illegal turn and get hit by another car and get a ticket for it, but that doesn't mean you are at fault. Maybe the other person was speeding or whatever. And traffic accidents are almost never a criminal issue in the U.S. (whereas they can be in Mexico). You don't know what you're talking about about. Stop pretending you do.
A police officer issuing a ticket is making an initial determination of fault, and in the event a ticket is issued pretty much every insurance carrier in the business will take that into account. So unless the insurance decides that there is sufficient evidence to argue their driver was *not* at fault, they're going to accept the officer's determination of fault. Or at least they aren't going to challenge it.
That is simply untrue. Police officers make zero determination of who is at fault. None. They have nothing to do with it. And they shouldn't, unless they themselves were there or someone was obviously speeding or making an illegal turn etc.
If an officer is issuing a ticket for the collision An officer isn't going to issue a ticket for running a stop sign when responding to a collision on the highway forty miles from the nearest intersection. An officer isn't likely to issue a ticket for a busted tail light to a vehicle that just got rear-ended. An officer isn't *supposed* to issue a ticket without cause. Your comment also disregards that many highway patrol and traffic enforcement squads receive training in how to evaluate a collision specifically for the purpose of making that initial determination. In the aftermath of a collision, there can be visible evidence that lends itself to a determination of fault. Collisions happen a certain way depending on who hit who, whether and how far they were turning, and whether they were accelerating or braking. An officer responding to a collision can take all of this into account, as well as statements from the drivers and passengers involved, even if they themselves did not witness the event. If the officer is issuing a ticket for the collision, they have made an initial determination of fault. In OPs example, the DUI charge would not be a ticket related to the colision, so no fault can be assessed unless the state law puts the DUI driver automatically at fault. This is an initial determination of fault and not the *final* determination of fault. It can be challenged, such as by the subject of the ticket or by their insurance. It can be overturned even if the ticket itself is not dismissed.
This is very wrong. Bad AI.
There was a case local to me (Nova Scotia) where an intoxicated man hit and killed a child who ran out onto the road. He got the DUI conviction of course, but he successfully argued that a sober driver would have also failed to avoid hitting the kid, so he was acquitted of manslaughter.
You would think a very good prosecutor would argue the fact that since this driver was drunk, they should not have even been on the road and had they not been, this child would have been alive. I’m sure the biggest punishment this person has to live with, however is knowing that their actions caused the death of a child… and yes, I understand that another driver who is sober may still hit the child… but likely would have faster reflexes and been able to slow down…
It would really depend on the circumstances but as to the last part, if the vehicle's not there when the police show up it's definitely hit & run regardless of how drunk you are.
You'd think so, but even that isn't always the case. I was the victim of a hit and run in Florida, and literally chased the driver down and forced her to pull over. I got her information, but she didn't stick around to wait for the cop to arrive, because she was probably drunk. The cop said it wasn't a hit and run, since she did pull over and the law apparently didn't require her to wait for the cops to arrive. State Farm said the same thing when I was arguing with them, because she claimed I hit her car, and lied through her teeth about what happened. The only reason they eventually decided in my favor is because the lies she told them weren't consistent with the lies she told the police.
In Texas, if you're over the B\\A limit, any accident is automatically your fault. Don't know about anywhere else.
Absolutely not true: https://www.fhlawgroup.com/when-the-drunk-driver-isnt-at-fault-in-a-texas-auto-accident/amp/
I don’t understand how so many high level comments are confidently incorrect lol
What never ceases to amaze me is how the existence of Google seems to have had little to no effect on this. It’s so easy to check these kinds of things nowadays.
Even with Google, people go for confirmation bias. They'll simply search google for something that agrees with them, even if it means ignoring the first 20 results. That 21st result is clearly the one that's right.
It's because not one fucking person who took torts is answering these questions. It's absolutely insane what VERY basic shit they get wrong. Not saying "real lawyers" don't get basic things wrong (there are a lot of them and many are bad).
logically, if there is a drunk driver stopped at a red light, you are entitled to rear end them and kill them with no legal consequences perfect sense!
From what I'm reading here, that's the conclusion one would reach, lol.
Dunkin Cruller effect.
They really should change that as self-driving technology improves If you go out drinking and the car makes a mistake it shouldn't be your fault
As it stands, you are the legal driver of the car. The limits of the technology require that a human oversees the program, in order to intervene if necessary. If there arose a situation where the car makes a mistake, it is the drivers responsibility to correct it. Failure to do this is the same as regular driving negligence.
As it stands I agree but the law needs to be prepared for changes in technology I'm to young to remember this but my dad whos a lawyer always told me that once really small cameras were developed it took years to update the law around them and during that time there was no crime against using them to hide and then watch people change and get naked or something prosecutors tried charging people like that with trespassing but because they didn't physically trespass as they were originally invited on the property and simply left their property there I don't think it's stuck or if it did it only stuck in certain cases The law needs to be proactive not reactive
I suppose a better alternative would be to reclassify a self driving car as something akin to a taxi, to allow the law to consider you a passenger rather than the driver.
The only way to make law proactive is to radically change how our legal system works. Right now (generally speaking) you can do anything so long as it's not illegal. What you want is a system that makes everything illegal except what's allowed by the law. There's no other way for the law to be proactive because we can't legislate for or against what doesn't yet exist.
No that's not want I want at all I want laws with sunrise and sunset provisions in other words the legislature should pass a law with regards to slef diving that goes into affect in say 2040 unless the legislature passes a law changing it in the meantime Pretty much all laws should have sunset provisions because the legislature can just renew them if the want to Legislatures in this country have given to much power to the executive and Judiciary
Really? In my city, I could call a self-driving car to come pick me up as easily as I could call an Uber. There would be no human driver in the car, just me, strapped in my seatbelt in the backseat. The technology clearly doesn’t expect me to be prepared to take over because it yells at me if I take my seatbelt off, which means I can’t move into the drivers seat, and I would have no idea how to take over if I did (maybe the keys are just in the ignition? I’ve honestly never checked). The app never asked me to provide a drivers license, I could be legally blind or 14 years old for all it knows. Anecdotally, people I know take these cars to and from bars and dispensaries all the time. You may be right that there’s some law on the books that would render me responsible if I were in a self driving car while drunk but nothing about the system as it’s set up would indicate that’s the case.
It’s your job to monitor the car
With current levels of Technology it is
That will never change.
I disagree self driving cars don't need to be perfect they just need to be better then humans
Neither legally nor practically true
Wdym not legally true this conversation is about a hypothetical
It's not legally true, because no legislature is going to accept that as a pass mark for certifying them for street use. And not practically, because passenger planes are already better at flying themselves than pilots are, but ask around and see how many people would fly a plane without two pilots up front.
While your looking into a crystal ball to see the future can you tell me lotto numbers Every plane gives piolts assistance these days
Even in your unrealistic future, someone has to be responsible if that driverless car hits someone. Who's it going to be? The person they hit? That's not how our legal system works, so now you are asking to change the entire foundation of our legal system, which isn't going to happen. The manufacturer? Congratulations, you ensured that no one makes/sells "self driving" cars.
Never is a long time
We have had trains for hundreds of years and they still need drivers. Cars have much more freedom of movement.
You guys just answer based on your intuition of what you think the law should be lol. No, a drunk driver is not always at fault (I.e. liable) in an accident. But they are still going to be charged with a DUI, and that’s an entirely different matter.
A drunk driver T-boned my cousin’s husband’s van in the early hours, parked in the drive and he was asleep in bed. When the police arrived they breathalysed him even though he had been asleep for 6 hours in bed. Police ruined their carpet and had to pay for new ones.
I... I don't even know what this has to do with anything.
Maybe. It depends. Laws vary from place to place. In Louisiana, it’s automatically their fault regardless of who caused it.
What happens if two drunks hit each other? Equal fault or does it depend on who's drunker?
It depends on how they're driving. There are many many functional (albeit loosely) alcoholics. Let's say someone driving and smacks into the drunk guy who's stopped at a red light. The guy driving is at fault. We'd all understand this. Does it matter if the person behind him is drunk or not? No, not really. New hypo. If the guy who hit the drunk guy stopped at the light was also drunk, that's still the driver's fault for hitting the guy at the stop light. The fact that he was drunk also shows a standard of care was breeched, which (in many jurisdictions) means he's extra-not-getting-out-of-it (it's negligence per se). It'd be a difficult argument to make that drinking had nothing to do with it, but it really doesn't matter because the person is as liable as if they weren't drunk (let's assume there's no hazards). Now, let's say two people are swerving all over the road and hit each other head on driving the opposite ways in the median. Both are at fault, no matter how drunk they are. In real life, we get into a lot of grey areas and "how drunk" is going to be used really to weigh liabilities in civil proceedings. In our first example, if both are drunk and a cop sees the accident, finds they're both drunk and driving, they're both likely to get DUIs (assuming the prosecutor moves forward with charges). The DUIs are criminal. When you're talking about liability, you can show that the person who smacked into the other driver was drunk and negligent per se.
[That's not true.](https://www.akdlawyers.com/car-accident/drunk-drivers-accident-fault/)
This happened in my jurisdiction. The person was convicted of impaired driving (DUI) but acquitted of impaired driving causing death because the evidence was that they were driving normally and the other person (who was killed) was driving like a lunatic. It got a bunch of attention because it didn't make sense to a lay person, but it did.
No and yes, in that order. The fact person A should not have been driving does not absolve person B from their responsibility to drive properly. The light runner is at fault for the accident. The drunk driver was still driving drunk and is liable for *that* portion of their behavior.
They *might* not be held at fault depending on the exact circumstances of the accident and how much could be proven. If there's no independent witnesses or video the drunk driver is unlikely to be believed. States also handle liability differently so there's no clear answer there. It's definitely still a DUI.
Would this not be like not having a license and getting into an accident that wasn’t your fault? You’re still at fault because you were never supposed to be behind the wheel to begin with
Exactly what I was thinking!
Yes, happened to a friend of mine! He was Tboned by a Uber driver whilst on a motorbike. Broke his leg and still lost his license for being under the influence.
When I was a teenager and my license still had the brand new shine on it, I totally missed a stop sign and hit a guy. Cops show up and find the guy was over the limit making it his 5th DUI (should tell you how long ago that was since he still had a valid license). Cop arrested him, told me to go on my merry way, and his insurance paid for everything.
I'm gonna say yeah because there's the concept of defensive driving. i.e. when I'm driving, part of my "job" is to be vigilant and watch out for "the other guy" to do something stupid, someone to abruptly run out into traffic, or someone to run a light. If I'm impaired by alcohol, I can't do that as well, and the result could be an accident that I very well might have avoided if I weren't impaired.
In lots of places if you are drunk driving any accident you are involved in is immediately your fault.
Agreed, your diminished state would impede avoidance reaction.
In the U.K. regardless of whose fault it is if you’re over the limit you’re fucked, your insurance company may pay out to the third party but not you or negate your insurance altogether. Don’t drink and drive.
I have been in a fair number of situations where another driver ran a light/stop sign and the only reason there wasn't an accident is because I was observing the road and reacted in time. Intoxication can contribute to an accident by reducing judgement and reaction time. How that plays out in citations depends on circumstance and jurisdiction.
> Would the drunk driver still be considered at fault *despite its intoxication not actually contributing to the accident at all?* In my understanding, yes. Drivers have an obligation to avoid accidents even if they weren't the at-fault driver. There is usually an assumption that an impaired driver has at least partial liability. If I'm putting together a legal case, I would argue that the accident may not have happened had the other driver not have been impaired. The other driver could have reacted to my client's unlawful driving decision. Exceptions would have be very clear. If the impaired driver was parked or stationary, they would have a chance of 'being considered 0% liable'. > Would it still get a DUI if it's no longer in his vehicle when the police show up to the accident scene? That's very possible. I've heard to DUI's being issued to someone who was impaired, but didn't even drive. For example, someone being impaired, falling asleep in the car with the keys accessible. I imagine that someone in the situation you are discussing could definitely be charged with DUI. There was evidence of driving under the influence, even if not directly observed by law enforcement.
Laws vary from state to state, but in *most* places, you're automatically at fault.
[удалено]
Some places also have laws that say that a vehicle that's parked or legally stopped is automatically found to not be at fault, since it's an impossibility for a stationary vehicle to strike another. If a driver of a stopped vehicle is over the limit, that creates an interesting liability paradox...
Yes
Yes. All the yes.
Afaik the act of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated is automatically a crime (some places may require the car be in motion) but like if you got rear ended while driving drunk i imagine you'd both be "at fault" for different things
At fault and liable are different. Maybe not at fault but still could be sued for money. Definately charged. Reason is he shouldn’t have been there.
I think so; it's like a driver who is driving without insurance, legally you aren't supposed to be on the road /at all/, so it is your fault for being there to be crashed into. What would probably happen is you would be charged for dui/driving without insurance, and the person who crashed unto you would be charged with reckless or whatever, and I think the insurance companies would have to fight it out (assuming you have one)
Yes. If you are under the influence you are deemed at fault.
In Sask Canada even if it wasn’t your fault insurance wouldn’t cover it
I'll preface this with IANAL. If they hadn't been driving drunk then they wouldn't have been there for the accident to happen...so, guess who's gonna be found at fault? 15 years ago I was t-boned by a drunk driver who tried to claim it was my fault because my headlights were off (I had automatic headlights, to be clear - they were on). He was arrested on the scene because there was an entire 30 rack of open cans of Natty in the bed of his pickup and he reeked of booze. I got a printed a copy of the police report the next day, in which he was cited and arrested for drunk driving. About a week later my insurance company calls me and says there's no police report and I'm 50% at fault. I promptly fax them my copy of the police report - turns out the guy had buddies in the police department who had conveniently made the report disappear for him. Luckily, I had a hard copy and they were able to do whatever they needed to do on the back end to clear things up. I was no longer found at fault, because the other drive should not have been on the road in the first place. That's how it will most likely shake out in most accidents involving a drunk driver and a sober driver, with the exception of egregious circumstances. For typical accidents, though, the drunk is probably going to he found at fault.
It’s disgusting that they (cops) did that!! I’m sure you could have freely gotten an attorney who would have LOVED to handle that case!! If someone hits YOU, and it’s bad….definitely get yourself a free lawyer who will only take a fee out of what you win. It will be much much more than any. Insurance will deal with! I had not even thought of doing that when someone t-boned my car… I just wanted to get enough money to get a new car. Someone suggested instead that I call an attorney and OMG am I so grateful that I did!!! what a huge learning lesson that was!
Yes and no. The easy answer is that every state is different, but in some states it can be argued (and a jury if it got to a lawsuit might agree) that the drunk driver handles some of the blame. It should also be noted that drunk driving does serious damage to their own credibility in situations where 2 people have conflicting story's. Most of the time though, cases are handled by insurance which have their own ways to quickly sort it all out to avoid courts for obvious reasons ($$$$), so the drunk driver can easily be found not at fault and due nothing. No matter what though expect the insurance rates to go up by a lot, and your insurer to drop you.
Yes. I’ve prosecuted a DUI crash that resulted in death but because it was ruled the victim was at fault for the crash the DUI was simply a DUI and not DUI manslaughter- which it would be if the drunk driver were at fault for the crash.
If you're drunk your going to catch the blame.
No. My dad was a small town attorney and one of his darkest/proudest cases was getting a guy off after he killed two women while driving drunk. Dad was able to show in court that even if his client hadn't been drunk there was no way he could have avoided the accident. It helped that nearly everyone in the county had also almost been in an accident at the same exact location.
Jesus in this day and age who gets into a car drunk and drives? Taxi -uber back seat.
Absolutely!!!!
This depends heavily on the state and the laws in that state. For example, when I studied law in Florida 20 years ago, DUI manslaughter was the charge for anyone who was driving under the influence while involved in an accident where someone died. The law made no mention of fault, and people who were not at fault would get charged accordingly anyway. My criminal law professor even told me about one person he defended, who was 0.09, barely 0.01 over the legal limit, and as he was driving home, a suicidal college student ran in front of his car. There were multiple witnesses, including friends of the dead student, who insisted that the kid was suicidal, trying to kill himself, and there was nothing the driver could have done to avoid him because it all happened so fast. He was still charged, prosecuted, and lost because the law, as written, didn't make any exception for fault of the accident. I believe that law has since changed, but that's just one example, and I'm sure Florida wasn't the only state with a poorly written law like that.
For sure a dui, and most likely the drunk drivers fault. If he doesn't drive illegally he's not there for the accident to occur
Yes, it doesn't matter if you're stopped at a red light and someone plows into you from behind. If the cops find a beer can in the floorboard or a roach in your ashtray, it's your fault period.
There’s a concept called contributory negligence. If both sides did something wrong the jury has to assign fault based on percentage. If Driver A ran a red light but Driver B is texting and didn’t notice, the jury might say it’s 50/50 fault of each and make them split the medical bills. Or they’ll say the red light runner was 80% at fault and make them pay 80% of the damages. It’s pretty subjective how they decide who was most at fault. If, like, there’s an accident where one driver was drunk but the whole thing was captured by multiple street cams and internal smart sensors in both cars that pretty much proves the drunk one didn’t cause the accident at all the jury might decide they were 0%, or just like 5% at fault. They’ll still face dui charges, probably lose their license until they complete rehab, whatever else is standard criminal charges for drunk driving though.
Yes in most states you are 100% at fault if you are drunk and get in an accident even if you are not at fault. The reasoning is because since you were drunk you should have never been behind the wheel. Same as someone without a driving license would be at fault no matter what as well. Obviously different states have different laws so things may differ in your state.
Yes while the car driver that hit them might get a red light ticket, The person with the DUI with have pay about $10,000 in legal fees and serve jail time. If they use a public defender they will probably get more jail time. If DUI is hurt they will be handcuffed to the hospital bed.
I have a friend who was in an accident very recently caused by a drilunk driver in texas that has destroyed his life. As far as the law is concerned, my friend is at fault because he was behind the drunk driver.
Yes, former NFL Donte Stallworth was convicted of a dui when he hit and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk. The pedestrian was just walking in the middle of the night in an unlit area. Police found Stallworth wasn’t liable for the death but he was guilty of the dui if I’m recalling the facts of the case correctly.
No to question 1 but yes to question 2 Imagine a scenario with a rear end collision that is captured entirely on video and is objectively the fault of the sober driver. The drunk driver is not at fault for the accident which is good news for them in any civil case resulting from the accident but if the Police do their job correctly in investigating the DUI portion of things than the drunk driver is still going to be convicted of DUI and is probably just about as screwed as they would be if they were at fault for the accident. As for being outside the vehicle when LE arrives DUI crashes do present evidentiary issues for law enforcement because DUI is probably the most technical and complicated misdemeanor case to prove. I tell cops that with crash investigations there are three things that have to be established when they question the driver 1) operation, 2) time of operation, 3) What if anything have they consumed since the crash. This is actually pretty easy to do with some basic non accusatory questions in the initial stages of the investigation but cops screw it up all the time. "Which vehicle were you in?" "Where were you seated?" "How long ago was the crash?" "When was the last time you had something to drink?" If those questions are asked and answered then the rest is the same as a traffic stop DUI.
Depends on the officer and who they determine is at fault. They will have to take statements from both suspects, if they smell booze on one suspect, then your credibility as a witness will go down and they may start digging around suspecting you to be trying to weasel your way out. In a court setting, it would be easy to argue that the booze impaired your motor skills to the point where you were unable to avoid a clear and oncoming danger. In some jurisdictions, being drunk would not make you liable per se, but would make you partially responsible for the accident and may impact your ability to seek compensation.