car accident redux

[macphanatic]

What I don't understand is why a driver with no license is not automatically charged as "at fault." If they don't have a license, it is illegal for them to drive. Therefore, they should not have been at the scene in the first place.

[katkramer]

I just posted a question about my fiancee's bicycle accident, and the Austin police department took down NO WITNESS information, although he was on the ground being attended to by EMS. We have since discovered a bias against cyclists...and we've got it on VIDEO.

We started out with no witness information whatsoever. However, through a lot of phone calls and a little detective work, we now have three! I contacted the police department's record group, and asked for copies of the 911 calls, which are public domain in Texas. I also called and found out who the officers were, and had their sergeant have them check their journals for any notes. We found one witness! We were lucky on one more...the officers didn't offer him a ride, but another girl at the scene drove a black VW beetle, and was wearing an Army uniform, and we were able to track her down.

But the best witness we got came from the 911 call. The paper printed version of the call record had his information blanked out. However, the AUDIO recording they gave us had his phone number. We called him, and he is going to be a good witness.

We also obtained the in-car camera video from the officer's patrol car. That's where we catch him saying all sorts of terrible things about cyclists.

We are having to file on my fiancee's PIP coverage on HIS insurance to cover the out-of-pocket medical costs, and I believe that's also used for underinsured/uninsured motorist claims.

Even if you sue this person, if they have nothing, there's nothing that can be done. I had someone in Texas owe me money, and I was told even if I hired a lawyer and took him to court, that the court couldn't force him to pay. The amount to hire a lawyer is more than what he owes me. They said the only way they'll enforce a judgment is if it's child support.

Good luck...and keep us posted. Call your police department's records department and start asking questions...pester them!

[OWC Jamie]

macphanatic wrote:
What I don't understand is why a driver with no license is not automatically charged as "at fault." If they don't have a license, it is illegal for them to drive. Therefore, they should not have been at the scene in the first place.

You have no license.
You are passed out drunk.
Parked in a parking spot, correctly and legally.
Some careless driver with a license smashes into you from behind and breaks 30 of your bones.

Your fault ?

[macphanatic]

billb wrote:
[quote=macphanatic]
What I don't understand is why a driver with no license is not automatically charged as "at fault." If they don't have a license, it is illegal for them to drive. Therefore, they should not have been at the scene in the first place.

You have no license.
You are passed out drunk.
Parked in a parking spot, correctly and legally.
Some careless driver with a license smashes into you from behind and breaks 30 of your bones.

Your fault ?
Passed out drunk in a parked car can and usually will result in a dui.

I should have been more specific. If one is driving a vehicle without a valid license, they should be charged with being at "fault." That doesn't mean that another driver who broke a law (running a red light, etc) should not also be charged with "at fault."

[JoeH]

Passed out drunk in a parked car can and usually will result in a dui.

Only if the keys are in the ignition, or the engine is running.

[RAMd®d]

If one is driving a vehicle without a valid license, they should be charged with being at "fault."

I disagree. "Fault" is not the lack (or possession) of a driver's license. "Fault" is the actions (or non-actions) of a driver.

Driving without a license is an infraction, but does not assign fault. I'd like to see it made a criminal offense, the same as driving on a suspended/revoked DL. But it's not.

Still, that's different from the liability of actually causing a collision.

[macphanatic]

JoeH wrote:

Passed out drunk in a parked car can and usually will result in a dui.

Only if the keys are in the ignition, or the engine is running.

Not true in all cases. I know of two cases were people were sleeping it off in the back seat. Keys were not in the ignition and the engine was cold. Both charged with DUI. Do not know the outcome of the court cases, but do know that they were both arrested and charged.

[RAMd®d]

but do know that they were both arrested and charged.

Sad, bad police work, at least by CA law (though that wasn't always the case).

In CA, case law says the CVC's use of "operation" means just that. If the engine's not running, the vehicle isn't in operation.

Now I know of a few cases where Driver 1 has fallen asleep at a STOP sign or a traffic signal, engine running. That's part of the PC for DUI in these parts.

[RAMd®d]

Sometimes people may be charged with being unable to care for their own welfare in the circumstances you describe, but not DUI (again, around here).