Hypothetical Q about accidents, DUI, and the law

Factual Questions
1

Jack is driving along with a flask of his namesake under the seat. Let’s say he’s just a bit over the legal BAC level but not blind drunk (yet). He takes a big ol’ guzzle, comes to a stop sign at a 4-way stop sign, stops completely, looks both ways, and then when he continues WHAM His car is hit by Bob, who’s stone cold sober but not the brightest bulb. Bob ran his stop sign, and because of some roadside shrubbery he wasn’t immediately visible to Jack.

A few reliable witnesses are on hand to testify that the accident was 100% Bob’s fault - Jack stopped completely and had the right of way, while Bob was supposed to have stopped but did not.

Would the fact that Jack’s been drinking be a factor? If it was noticed (someone smelled it or saw the flask) would it affect Bob’s culpability i.e. would Bob be off the hook for paying for damage repair on Jack’s car?

Not a need-answer-fast scenario :wink: nor is this a problem experienced by me, my “friend” or anyone I know. It’s not related to anything in real life. I just saw someone run a stop sign yesterday and it got my mind to wonderin’ … that’s all.

2

Depends on the jurisdiction, and depends on what you mean by culpability.

About 15 states have no-fault laws, which means that it doesn’t matter who caused the accident when it comes to determining who pays. Each driver’s insurance company pays for his car and the passengers within regardless.

In other states, it would simply be a civil matter under tort law, so it would likely be up to a judge or jury to weight the facts. You can bet that Bob’s attorney’s will raise the issue of Jack’s BAC and attempt to argue that even though Bob violated a traffic law, he might have been able to avoid the accident.

As far as legal liability, as soon as a cop sees the flask, the handcuffs will come out.

3

IANAL
Both would be judged partially responsible- since Jack would not have been hit if he was following the law, he would have been sitting in a taxi. Bob obviously went through a stop sign, and there are witnesses that say he did.

In places in Canada that have government-run insurance, I bet they love these cases. Jack gets no compensation because he was violating the law when he had the accident. Bob pays his deductible.

Plus, Bob gets a “dangerous driving” and “going through a stop sign” ticket. Jack gets a DUI charge. I leave it as an exercise to the reader who gets the bigger fine, and which one gets a suspended license and possible jail time. (Hint: driving drunk is a much more serious offense than momentary inattention and not seeing one stop sign.)

4

At least in my state, simply being intoxicated is not per se fault in an accident.

In your scenario, absent any testimony that Jack did or did not do something that he should have (in relation to the movement of his car) Bob will be found to be at fault and Jack will get compensated for his losses.

5

md2000, this is not correct, at least not in Canada. “Dangerous driving” is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court has held that to commit this offence, there must be a marked departure from the ordinary standards of driving. Mere inadvertence or error, such as going through a stop sign, would not qualify.

For instance, in R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5, the Supreme Court of Canada found that someone who fell asleep at the wheel and crossed the centre line on a highway was not guilty of dangerous driving, even though that caused an accident which killed three people in an oncoming vehicle. Momentary inadvertence is not enough to support a criminal charge of dangerous driving.

Bob would get a ticket under the provincial highway laws for going through a stop sign.

6

Random witnesses can not give such testimony because they are not qualified. All they can testify to is what they saw. They would not be allowed to enter testimony about who is at fault unless, by some miraculous chance, they happen to be experts in that field.

If the intersection was obstructed as you say, then why did Jack enter it without being aware of the approaching vehicle? The exact wording of laws varies, but all the ones I am aware of say that, at a stop sign, you must come to a complete stop, ensure that there is no approaching traffic, and only then may you proceed. Simply stopping does not allow you to immediately proceed. If the view of the intersection was obstructed then why did Jack drive into it? And if he carefully nosed out into the intersection to check for incoming traffic, then how did he manage to get hit? At worst Bob could only have clipped his nose, and even then only if he made no effort at all to swerve even a few feet. Is that the case? If so then it changes the case completely, and most of the fault now rests with whoever maintains the road, with neither driver bearing more than a tiny fraction of responsibility.

Almost certainly not.

Driving drunk slows your reaction time and diminishes your perception. That is well established in both science and law. Even absent any testimony this is evidence that Jack might have avoided the accident had he not been drunk.

The problem is that traffic accidents are almost never unavoidable, and the courts are aware of this. I have lost count of the number of times that I have indisputably avoided accidents that other people would have caused, including scenarios almost identical to the one posed in the OP.

The accident as described was not unavoidable. Since Jack had stopped, he should have had a clear view of the intersection before he proceeded. Failing to do so is itself a violation of traffic laws over most of the planet. You simply can not drive into a blind intersection. If the entire intersection actually was obscured by shrubbery then whoever is in charge of the road is at fault, but I have never actually seen an intersection where you can not gain a clear view of the intersection by just edging out over the line by a couple of feet. I can’t even imagine how that could be. Even on roads with solid walls built up to channeling, you can still creep out a little and have a look before driving into the intersection.

The claim that Jack never even had awareness of Bob’s vehicle before he was hit is itself evidence that Jack was being inattentive and driving unsafely. If he says that in court, then it will immediately become plausible evidence that his driving was affected by alcohol. And if he lies and says that he did see Bob coming, but thought that Bob was going to stop, then it will be argued that his inability to judge speeds was due to his inebriation.

And this is why, regardless of testimony, Jack will almost certainly be found to be partially at fault. Alcohol impairs judgement, perception and reaction times. No matter what testimony is given it is going to be difficult to convince the judge/jury that Jack absolutely, 100% could not have avoided the accident if he had been sober.

And I agree completely with that concept. About the only accidents that are completely unavoidable are the ones where another car swerves from their lane into yours. With almost any other accident, a skilled driver can take steps that reduces the chance of the accident occurring. I’m not saying that they will always be successful, but the chance exists and being drunk diminishes that chance greatly.

Sure, Bob shares much of the blame, but it’s more than plausible that if Jack hadn’t been drunk then the accident would never have occurred. Road safety depends on the cooperation of all road users. Bob should not have to bear full responsibility for a moment’s inattention when the accident could have been avoided completely if Jack had not spent an hour drinking and several more minutes driving while drunk. Jack’s contribution to the accident was deliberate and prolonged and he had numerous opportunities to avoid it. Bob’s contribution was the result of milliseconds of inattention.

And that is very likely the way any court will find and certainly the argument that will be pursued by anyone with a financial stake in the case, especially insurance companies.

7

What are the reasonable and probable grounds (R&PG) which the police can use to demand a test to determine intoxication? Since this is a search of the person’s breath, and a seizure of a breath sample, this falls under s. 8 of the Charter; and as such, a warrant is necessary, or the police must have R&PG upon which to demand a test. See, for example, R. v. Bernshaw, [1994] 1SCR 254 for how R&PG must add up, subjectively and objectively, to the point where a formal (i.e. not a roadside) breath test can be demanded.

Your statement, “Jack gets a DUI charge” has little justification on the facts the OP gave us. We simply do not know whether the factors that police look for in in order to form a belief that they have R&PG to lay such charges are present (see Bernshaw again), and I would suggest that without such factors, we cannot even guess at what they would do.

On the facts the OP gave us, I can state that Bob would get a ticket under a provincial statute (the Traffic Safety Act, the Highway Traffic Act, or whatever it is called in your province) for blowing the stop sign; but I’ll stop short of trying to guess at what would happen to Jack.

8

My understanding is that whatever agency compiles vehicle accident statistics in the U.S. (NHTSA?) automatically labels an incident as “alcohol related” if any driver tests positive for alcohol in the blood, regardless of whether any case can be made that said alcohol in any way contributed to the accident.

9

My guess (IANAL) is that the police looking at the accident would smell alcohol on his breath; that would constitute reasonable grounds, just as it does in a roadside checkstop or any other situation. Once that happens, he either blows and gets “Driving With Over .08” (which, IANAL, isn’t DUI a Canadian Criminal Code actual criminal offense?) or “refusing a breathalyzer”, ditto.

I assume standard police procedure in any accident is to talk to the drivers, observe them, and check for obvious signs of possible impairment. I don’t think the courts have ruled yet the police have no right to notice the smell while talking to you.

The appeal courts in Ontario have already tossed the “Gordon Lightfoot defense”… Remember his lawyer argued that just because he was drunk when he reached the police station does not mean he was drunk behind the wheel.

Regardless, there’s a whole other thread - being caught behind the wheel impaired, still driving or not yet driving, at fault or not in whatever happened, you are committing a crime.