Who Is At Fault?

I had a discussion with a friend of mine the other day about putting the blame on people. Here is the situation: Your friend is driving home late at night around 2am to go home, he weren’t drinking. Suddenly a drunk driver smashes into him and kills him. Who would you say at fault, your friend for being out late and coming home at 2am, or the drunk driver for basically being a drunk driver and hitting him? Legally? Morally? Whatever else-ly?
Second what if both were drinking but it was the other drunk that hit your friend, who do you blame then? Help me settle this argument.

This is a no-brainer - the person who caused the accident is at fault. :s

frosty,
my grandma would say the guy shouldn’ have been out late. she always says stuff like that. people die in a plane crash. they shouldn’t have been flying. people get killed in an earthquake. they shouldn’t have been living in LA. a guy gets wacked by gangsters. shouldn’t have been living in taiwan.

Anyone who drinks and then gets behind the wheel of an automobile should be arrested for attempted manslaughter whether or not an accident is caused. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are killed yearly by drunk drivers.

A drunk person behind the wheel is the equivalent of a person swinging a baseball bat at your face.

There are no gray areas here.

Isn’t attempted manslaughter a contradiction in terms? :s

Thanks for catching the key point of my post. :unamused:

the drunk driver is at fault. But you didn’t elaborate on why your friend was out at 2 am. If he was just out for the sake of being out, then that’s his peragative. But if he was doing something shady at 2 am,then that’s another story.
Also, if both were driving drunk, then both are at fault, except the one who it the other is more responsible for the cause…

I’d say, irrespective of other factors, the guy whose action led to the accident is at fault. The problem is, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. There may be some degree of shared fault, as there is in many accidents. In the case of two impaired drivers, one may have performed an action such as running a red light that directly led to the accident. However, the other driver may be found to have not properly ensured the intersection was clear before proceeding through it, travelling too fast through it and so on. The degree of impairment may be brought into the equation. Would a sober person reasonably have been able to avoid the collision or reduce its severity through better reaction times? Two drunks make it a murky matter, I think.

Whoever caused the collision is at fault. Not the person who happened to be out at that time, no matter what he was doing. Even if he was robbing a convenience store with a gun and shot the clerk, if he was following traffic laws and some drunk crossed the line and plowed into him, the drunk is the responsible party.
I lost two friends of mine in 1999, when a truck driver ran a red light and destroyed their car. They had to reconstruct their faces for the funeral. The only two children of a family, very close brothers. The younger one had finally graduated from university and they were on their way to meet their parents for a concert. Was it their fault for driving on the road? Or the shitbag who thought it was more important to get to where he was going 90 seconds sooner.

ohiou.edu/marching110/OUMBSA … awler.html

I agree with Jefferson that anyone caught driving while drunk should be charged with attempted manslaughter. They just happened to get pulled over before they had the chance to kill someone with their vehicle.

Sometimes fault isn’t clearcut and easy to determine, especially when we have a hypothetical scenario involving two intoxicated drivers.

Okay, the person who was in less control of their vehicle is at fault. In the case of two drunk drivers, they are both at fault because they had no business operating a motor vehicle in their condition.

The first case scenario is so obvious I’m amazed that anyone would have the gall to blame the victim of a drunk driver for “being out too late”. Well, you know, if you don’t drive a car, you won’t have car accidents, so it’s your fault for driving a car. Or being in the road. If you don’t want to get hit by a car, it’s your fault for being in the road in the first place.

The second case scenario is a little trickier. I’d say they were both at fault, not knowing any other facts. Depends on the situation.

Or you can take it one step further and say it is the governments fault for providing the road in the first place, which is what I said to police when they tried to pin an accident on me by saying I was at fault because I was on the road at the time (thereby meaning if I wasn’t there, it wouldn’t have happened). :loco:

I don’t care who was least in control of their vehicle at the time, they should both get locked up/hands chopped off/put down for being drunk behind the wheel in the first place.

I’m sorry for the loss of your friends, ImaniOU. It is a terrible shame that when people are so young, their life is taken in an act of total selfishness.

[quote=“Frost”]I had a discussion with a friend of mine the other day about putting the blame on people. Here is the situation: Your friend is driving home late at night around 2am to go home, he weren’t drinking. Suddenly a drunk driver smashes into him and kills him. Who would you say at fault, your friend for being out late and coming home at 2am, or the drunk driver for basically being a drunk driver and hitting him? Legally? Morally? Whatever else-ly?
[/quote]
Your friend is Taiwanese, I’m guessing.
Obviously, it depends. Which of the two is a foreigner? The foreigner is at fault. See Dangermouse’s post above. Someone (Dangermouse?) posted a while ago about how he had been blamed for an accident because, according to the police, if he had not been on the road, it would not have happened. While true, I believe Western legal judgment would say that the accident also would not have occurred if the drunk taxi driver had not been driving the wrong way down a one-way street.

[quote=“bababa”]
Your friend is Taiwanese, I’m guessing.[/quote]

Bingo! Someone my friend is agruing thats it’s a cultural thing, but I just say its reality. The person who hit the other person is at fault, no matter what.

Actually, I think there is a difference between being the one who hit the other person and being the one at fault. For example, if someone runs a red light and I hit him am I at fault for hitting him? I think it’s the other person’s fault for running the red light even though I hit him.

Ah Namahottie, you always have to introduce the shady aspect. :loco: :loco:

Maybe he went out to buy some smokes, or get a moontan… People don’t have to explain their actions at 2am.

Drunk drivers injure a lot of people, then cliam they don’t remember anything.

The drunk driver that took me out at a T junction only stopped after he hit a tree.

deleted

I’m sorry but the above post is just plain wrong. People who are drunk always think they can “handle their liquor”. But the evidence proves otherwise. That someone can be so selfish as to try to justify drunk driving is really sad.

You want to get drunk? Fine. Get drunk. Then take a taxi home. Because the millions of mothers and fathers around the world who have lost children to drunk drivers aren’t going to be interested in your argument. And police officers and courts shouldn’t have to waste time arguing with someone about whether or not they can handle their liquor. A first offense should lead to a revoked license and long jail sentence. Tough laws may not completely curb druk driving, but they’ll keep potential repeat offenders off the streets.

Idiot. What Jefferson said.

(Long, sarcastic rant deleted because I’m trying to be nicer poster after being so rude the other day.)