# Legal status of auto accident with two intoxicated drivers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 23, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-status-of-auto-accident-with-two-intoxicated-drivers/309478 "2005-06-23T02:26:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-status-of-auto-accident-with-two-intoxicated-drivers/309478/21 "2005-06-24T21:01:27Z")
> [@Sebensee](#): > > \ > > Can a court find a person at fault in an auto accident when no police officer investigated the accident and each party contends it was the others’ fault? > > \ Without addressing your specific case: The police officer is not the finder of fact. That job belongs to the court. The plaintiff generally bears the burden of proof that the defendant did something wrong and caused harm to the plaintiff. Police reports are often persuasive in establishing fault, but are not necessary. Hypothetically, if I go to court and show the dent on your back bumper matches the dent on my car door, that tends to prove you backed into me, even if no cop came along later and made a note of that at the scene. ---
**Author:** ![Sebensee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8baadc/32.png) [@Sebensee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sebensee)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-status-of-auto-accident-with-two-intoxicated-drivers/309478/22 "2005-06-24T21:08:12Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > In my state, you can only back up if you can safely do so, having a clear and unobstuctive view of the road. Thus the assumption is that A is in the wrong. Yes, I fear this myself. Even though he was occluding the driveway, the burden of avoiding him was all mine. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-status-of-auto-accident-with-two-intoxicated-drivers/309478/23 "2005-06-25T01:41:11Z")
First: Thanks to those of you who have defended/explained my post. Second: **Sebensee** , if you still want to know what city I’m in, look real hard at this post, or any other post I’ve ever written. Third: > [@Random](#): > > Lawyers tend to recognize signs of certain types of problem clients… [T]here’s a certain category of person that’s never happy with explanations … and the way you’ve presented things here throws of that vibe. > [@Sebensee](#): > > Yeah. Legal issues are so sticky that most fear to lay hands upon them for fear of never being able to wash them away. Thusly I appreciate your guarded stance. Thank you for the input. LOL. Big legal words? Riggggght. Can you please give me your name or, at the very least, the name of the city and office at which you practice? I don’t want to accidently bumble into it someday. [etc.] Thanks for the confirmation that my problem-client spidey sense is still working. Fourth: **Sebensee** , I’m glad that your later posts in this thread show a willingness to take the advice that several of us have offered, both in what you say and how you say it. But “occluding the driveway”? Yes, I know what the word occlude means. But it’s imprecise and not effective communication. Take a look at this: > [@someone who talked good](#): > > Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. Pretty basic English, with the possible exception of “odious”. But it worked. ---
**Author:** ![Sebensee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8baadc/32.png) [@Sebensee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sebensee)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-status-of-auto-accident-with-two-intoxicated-drivers/309478/24 "2005-06-27T00:01:01Z")
> [@Random](#): > > Third: > Thanks for the confirmation that my problem-client spidey sense is still working. It’s not _what_ you told me; it’s _how_ you told me. Trust me, I can survive a little criticism. Have you wondered why I was upset at your post and not the others? Telling someone they are using incorrect language and they are being confusing is one thing. Telling them that they are a likely problem client who just wants the law to favor them is laugable, at best. You can say right things the wrong way, just like I did. I apologize for my tart response. And trust me, your advice and criticism was well received. My advice to you is use better tact in the future. Thank you again. Now this overworked thread needs to die so we can bury it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-status-of-auto-accident-with-two-intoxicated-drivers/309478.md?page=1)