I'm writing a paper about negligence, and there's a question I have to answer. The problem is that I don't know exactly what the question means. Could someone please "translate" for me? Thank you!!

Question
Was Plaintiff's knowledge of the danger of driving while intoxicated an interveining cause of her injuries?


Help?

It's a question about "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" thingy, like if she says that she didn't know it was dangerous to drink and drive, is he still responsible for her own injuries?

At least that's what I think it is.

Ohsohappy
The answer to this question is found in the concept of cause and effect. Looks like we can't get away from that concept. Ironic isn't it? The concept of cause and effect share a lot in common with science, law and logic.

THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION, but I think what they getting at with the question is bound up with terms such as necessary cause, sufficient cause, contributing cause and intervening cause. I think it works like this.

Person (A) knows they are drunk but decide to drive anyway. Person (A) has an accident with driver(B) of another car. Person (A) is injured but decides to prove negligence on the part of (B). (A) knows it was not her fault and she later discovers that (B) cannot see very well without glasses which (B) was not wearing at the time. Now (A) wants to prove intervening cause; this is despite the fact that (A) was drunk. She wants to say that it was (B's) fault, not the fact that she was drunk. I think this would fail on the grounds that (B's) actions were a contributing cause. If (A) could prove that (B) didn't take his glass with him when we went driving because he intended to cause an accident then this would be an intervening cause.

I am sure someone in the legal profession will correct me if I got it wrong.

I think that makes sense. I tried looking it up but they way they explained it confused me.