Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I know of a case where the driver was drunk and was t-boned by a sober driver. The drunk driver was just over the limit (drunk but not insanely so....and no I'm not justifying anything, just explaining), and was charged and at fault for the collision in the eyes of the police. This was because the argument was that while the sober driver erred the drunk should never have been there in the first place.
Now, would that hold up in court? I'm not sure that it would. I would imagine you could fight that successfully.
|
That sounds ######ed. Like you, I'm also not tring to put drunk drivers in any sort of positive light, but that just seems like a lawyers dream case.
What if the guy is injured and needs to be compensated, how does that work? To me, that's just insane. If a cop charges him for an accident when the other guy was at fault, that just seems like the police are examing a crash scene and puporsely not investingating the crash properly because the victim is drunk.
To me that's a clear investigation....
-Drunk gets DUI
-Crash gets investigated properly and charges are layed out accordingly