I am suing an establishment for overserving the driver of a car I was in that was hit by another car... confusing I know... the establishment is now threatening to sue me for defamation saying that I have ruined its reputatioin... can I be sued for suing?

You need to explain a lot more to help us understand it.

What sort of "institution" high school, driving school, car rental agency

What did they do wrong in supervisor the driver?

And what were they sued for, and why were they sued.

If the owner of the car and the driver werer sued, and they had insurance would that not have covered any and all damages?

And countersueing is the normal way, esp for someone with a lot of money to defeat your law suit, they can keep you in court spending 1000's of your dollars in suit after refiling and appeals, put continueance after being contuined causing you to miss work and more.

I had one suit over an accident that took 8 years to finally be settled, and it was settled in a settlement, there never did reach a verdict.

So if you explain all of this better it could help us. But if you said anything untrue and your suit is found to be baseless they could have grounds for suing you, since what you stated in your suit if proven untrue can be used against you.

We were at a bar that over served the driver of the car I was in and I am suing the bar for over serving my driver, I am also suing the other driver and the owner of the other car. The lawsuit hasn't even made it to trial and the bar is threatening to sue me for defamation. The drivers alcohol level was .218 and his car was hit by another car (the other drivers fault). I need to know if I can be sued back. It has already been proven that the bar over served my driver and has a reputation for over serving all its customers. I was not aware of this and I did not know that I could sue the bar for over serving my driver until I went to see my attorney. I was injured and had surgery.

Just a thought - if it turns out that you win your suit then the bar's suit must go away since if can't be defamation if it's true. In reality they can't sue for defamation unless you lose your suit.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/4969B2E9-A1F7-45CD-8267D11574C46FDB/catID/8FA0132B-91C2-4773-828573F2D3D58DFA/104/199/215/ART/

An entire issue since you got in with him and were both at the bar.

And of course was the drinking an issue in the accident, if your driver did something wrong, then you have no suit against the other driver,

If you have a suit against the other driver, they did something wrong but if you are trying to prove also your driver did something wrong, it can effect that suit.

If the drinking was not the reason for the accident, all you have is the blook alcohol level. If you prove that your friend, being drunk was the cause of the accident, well that hurts your case against the other driver.

Not sure your lawyer was working all those angles out personally but heck if you agree to pay me a percentage I guess I would sue any and everyone, I may win something from somebody.

But if the accident was the other drivers fault, I don't see what the one driver being drunk had to do with the accident, and if it wasn't a factor in the accident, then the bar is not responsible. add to this you were a party to the drinking,

If this was Vegas, I would put my money on the Bar owners law suit.
You will have to win this case against the bar, if not, then your losing the case will be the evidence they use in thiers.

Are you using the same lawyer for all of this, if not do they know about the other law suits. Just because we can write up a law suit and file it does not mean we should.

Next what damages, and you can most likely only receive actual damages which would have been easily paid by the other drivers insurance if they were written at fault in the accident report ( note if you are not sure, when the police write up their report, the first driver listed is always the one they believe was at the most fault ( at least the way they used to be taught to do them)

I would advice you to check with a second attorney to be sure your first one is not giving some bad advice. My opinoin anyway.
Just because you can sue, does not always mean you should. You can't colleect twice on the same injuries ( both people are not going to pay your hospital bill)

I will assume they have you convinced you will make that million dollar law suit or something, I will note if you are going after the bar owner for serving the driver, the driver of the car you are in, could also sue you, since if the auto wreck was not his fault, and you are trying to show blame on him, he may also decide to sue you,

The only defence to defamation is to prove it is the truth.

You are suing the bar saying they over served him. If that is true, you will win and therefore, prove it to be true and they can't sue you.

However, if you lose, well, then they can win because you obviously did “lie” and damage their reputation with a frivolous lawsuit.

Is it possible for several parties to be responsible for more than one reason? Bar for over serving, other driver for running a red light and hitting us? The courts found fault with my driver for drinking and didn't care that the accident was caused from the other driver running a red light. The police report supports both my cases. It states the intoxication of my driver and states that the other driver hit us by running a red light.

Yes, more than one party can be found responsible.

The judge will determine percentages. Bar 30% responsible, Owner 40% responsible, other drive 30% responsible or whatever.

And now for the beauty…you can collect the money from ANY of them. Then they have to sue each other to fix the differences. That is, you can collect the entire amount from the bar and then the bar has to get back its part from the owner and other driver.

So since I am the "innocent" party, I can sue all of them for the part they played. Since his levels were so high and the accident happened immediately after leaving the bar and it is stated in the police report that that is where we left from, there is liability with the bar? I did not know this.

Yeah. Name them all as co-defendants.

I thought your lawyer already advised you to do that though?

Yes, we are... but after reading some of the responses in here, I started to have doubt about who we should or shouldn't sue. I have at least 3 employees and some customers who are willing to testify to this bars history of over serving... I am also a friend of the manager who just quit because of stuff like that going on... She is willing to testify to the over serving.

I hate to tell you this but-- Our legal system is based on the law of " He Who Owns the Gold Rules." The only winners are the lawyers who will keep the case running until one of the contestants run out of money.

Rule 101A ,you can sue anyone for anything
Rule 101B, you can be sued for anything by anybody.
Rule 101C, You will never win no matter what side your own.
Rule 101 D, only the lawyers and system will profit. Lots and lots of jobs created here. A very big industry in the USA.

Never sue or get sued is a very good philosophy in this country. Other countries have a gate keeper who over sees lawsuits and tosses the ones without merit. They also have the loser pays both attorneys. That solves the problem on lawsuits without merit. It will never be cleaned up here because the public elects lawyers non stop.

If you get involved expect a run of 5-8 years, appeals etc. A sure path to cancer /heart attacks. Sleepless nights, etc.

Janklow, a big shot politician, hit and killed a motorcycle rider some time back. He was convicted of manslaughter. The heirs sued. The case is on going but a Federal Court ruled Government Employees cannot be sued if they are on government biz. No justice in this country, despite what you read in the press.

However you were involved with a drunk by choice. You can get sued for that! So who's guilty here? Stay out of bars, drugs and away from bad company is my advice from birth to death if you want a decent life.

Geez Doc Sun, you sure have been burned by the court system. Or perhaps someone close to you has.

You seem to be very cynical of lawyers in general. True, civil suits don't always have justice, but most of the time they do.

If you're suing someone, hire a lawyer who works for a contingency…then it costs you noting but a share of the winnings.


As for you advice to Wolffman about him being sued because he was in a car with a drunk driver, that is absolutely ridiculous. Even America has some law suits that they don't allow to be brought. Any decent attorney would get that quashed immediately and Wolffman sounds like he indeed has a good attorney.

Geez Doc Sun, you sure have been burned by the court system. Or perhaps someone close to you has.

You seem to be very cynical of lawyers in general. True, civil suits don’t always have justice, but most of the time they do.

If you’re suing someone, hire a lawyer who works for a contingency…then it costs you noting but a share of the winnings.


As for you advice to Wolffman about him being sued because he was in a car with a drunk driver, that is absolutely ridiculous. Even America has some law suits that they don’t allow to be brought. Any decent attorney would get that quashed immediately and Wolffman sounds like he indeed has a good attorney.

I note you are in Canada. A very good and decent law system unlike ours. I'm very close to the system and very familiar with our problems. Run a Google search on Janklow. How much do you think the Scott heirs have spent on this case? That's our system at work.

Just my opinions on this -- You can be sued for being in a car with a drunk driver if there is a serious problem. You will be sued if there is a fatality! You will loose even if you win because the costs of defense can put you in bankruptcy. You want case law?

Contingencies are a rip. 1/3- 1/2 for a slam dunk.

Are you a Lawyer? You know what Mr. Shakespeare said about them?

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest with you.

I did run a Google search on Janklow.

How much did the Scott heirs spend? I don't know. But I would think 0. Perhaps they found an attorney who would work for a contingency only.

And besides, I happen to agree with him only getting 100 days. Yes, he killed someone, but he is/was a US Politician who does a lot of good for the community.

This above post by "docsun" makes absolutely no sense in the context of your problem. Let me address the glaring misstatements and then your original question.


I hate to tell you this but-- Our legal system is based on the law of " He Who Owns the Gold Rules." The only winners are the lawyers who will keep the case running until one of the contestants run out of money. (negligence cases are paid for through a contingency fee, the plaintiff pays nothing through the duration of the suit. Plaintiff's attorneys have absolutely no incentive to drag a case out, because they don't get paid until the case is over. In fact, being a part of a large Plaintiff's firm, I can tell you the the number one goal of the plaintiff's lawyer is to move a case as fast as possible.)
Rule 101A ,you can sue anyone for anything (true, but not without incurring costs)
Rule 101B, you can be sued for anything by anybody. (redundant)Rule 101C, You will never win no matter what side your own.(this makes no sense)
Rule 101 D, only the lawyers and system will profit. Lots and lots of jobs created here. A very big industry in the USA. (see fee analysis, above)

Never sue or get sued is a very good philosophy in this country. Other countries have a gate keeper who over sees lawsuits and tosses the ones without merit. They also have the loser pays both attorneys. That solves the problem on lawsuits without merit. It will never be cleaned up here because the public elects lawyers non stop. (merit less lawsuits are disposed of through motions to dismiss, and motions for summary judgment, they never get to a jury)
If you get involved expect a run of 5-8 years (the is absolutely ridiculous. A typical auto case with one plaintiff will run its course in 1-2.5 years), appeals etc. A sure path to cancer /heart attacks. sleepless nights, etc. (cancer/heart attacks? again...ridiculous)

Janklow, a big shot politician, hit and killed a motorcycle rider some time back. He was convicted of manslaughter. The heirs sued. The case is on going but a Federal Court ruled Government Employees cannot be sued if they are on government biz. No justice in this country, despite what you read in the press. (this has nothing to do with his question)

However you were involved with a drunk by choice. You can get sued for that! (what? What on earth would he be sued for?) So who's guilty here? Stay out of bars, drugs and away from bad company is my advice from birth to death if you want a decent life.

To answer your original question. It is very common to bring a DRAM SHOP action against a bar for serving someone that they knew, or should have known was intoxicated. The bar cannot sue you for defamation based upon the contents of court papers. Accusations in legal documents are exempt from what would normally be considered defamation. (**note technically it would be libel since the papers are written, but it is a non-issue.


To DOCSUN: Please bring your irresponsible and innacurate ramblings somewhere else. If you want to preach, there are several experts reading this thread who could direct you to the appropriate place. People come to this board for help and many (at their peril) will rely on what they read without checking the source. Posting a message in the law forum with such GROSS errors and inaccuracies is completely irresponsible.

I note you are in Canada. A very good and decent law system unlike ours. I'm very close to the system and very familiar with our problems. Run a Google search on Janklow. How much do you think the Scott heirs have spent on this case? That's our system at work.

Just my opinions on this -- You can be sued for being in a car with a drunk driver if there is a serious problem. You will be sued if there is a fatality! You will loose even if you win because the costs of defense can put you in bankruptcy. You want case law?

Contingencies are a rip. 1/3- 1/2 for a slam dunk.

Are you a Lawyer? You know what Mr. Shakespeare said about them?

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are embarrassing yourself. Please move on.

I am sorry I have not had a chance to respond until now. The bar in question is a bar that has a reputation for "over serving". After getting statements from past and current employees, my driver isn't the only one who has been over served by this bar. They allow customers to drink until they pass out on the bar and then they wake up and are served again. The bartenders play a game with the customers called "blind bartender". From what I understand of this game, the bar tender closes their eyes and turns towards the bottles and points a finger and the customer has to drink which ever alcohol is pointed to. This game can last for hours and then the customer is off on his way to drive through town with numerous different alcohols in their system and under extreme intoxication. The owner of the bar has played this game with customers his self. The owner finds humor in getting "certain" customers so drunk that they act like idiots so other customers can make fun of them. The owner has been taken aside and talked to by other customers about the things they see go on in "their" bar as a way to let the owner know that he is responsible for the actions of his bartenders and his self. The owner laughs and says that "it's just all in fun". The ex-manager I am friends with has also made a statement about what the "priority" was while you are on duty. Priority is to make money and give the customer whatever they want for however long they want it. My understanding is that it is not common practice to "check" your customers and find out if they are able or capable of driving theirselfs home after such activity. This has all come to light since the bar was notified of the lawsuit. My filing has brought to light the goings on in this bar and how they practice and run their business. My lawyer wants to make this business responsible for its irresponsibility towards what happened to me. Yes, I chose to visit this bar. Yes, I chose to get into a car with a driver who visited this bar. Did I know that my driver was seriously over the legal limit? No, I did not. Anyone who owns a business has a responsibility to its customers and the public. What if I chose to go to McDonalds and order a hamburger? I expect that the hamburger is going to be good to eat. What if I am served a hamburger with spoiled meat and I get seriously ill after eating it? Is that my fault because I chose to eat somewhere that I assume is looking out for my wellware? Because I chose to eat there does that make them not responsible for serving something that wasn't fresh? This isn't about money. It isn't about seeing who we can or can't sue. It's about a wrong that was done and that almost ended in trajedy. I not only broke my shoulder in this accident, but I stopped breathing twice.

Ok, I don't want to be a damp rag on this case, but why does it matter that this bar served this man too much, if it had nothing to do with the accident. I can't sue the bar for serving you too much to drink unless I am damaged because of their action.

To sue someone without just cause ( standing) can lead to trouble. The person you are sueing will be able to counter sue you and get all of his legal expense paid by you.

If his car had hit the other car and it had been the drunk drivers fault, yes you could sue the heck out of the bar. And yes with your evidence you could win, but if his drinking had nothing to do at all, no way, no how, with the accident, there is no liablity at all for him to be at fault. He the driver who was drunk is not at fault, the bar can not be held at fault.

*** side note, if McDonalds sells you 3 Big Macs a day and you go to the hospital for high blood pressure, is McDonalds liable?

Now they have perhaps a criminal issue, and you should and can turn this information over to the police.

But I can't see any attorney in his right mind even bringing this case on the bar to trial unless you can prove the drunk driver had some responsibility on the accident. The only thing I can think is an attorney may hope they would give a small settlement instead of hiring an attorney and the such.

Honestly if you go through with this ( and the drunk driver was not at fault in the accident like you said he was not) the bar will and can countersue you and they will have a good case.

Ok, I don't want to be a damp rag on this case, but why does it matter that this bar served this man too much, if it had nothing to do with the accident. I can't sue the bar for serving you too much to drink unless I am damaged because of thier action.

To sue someone without just cause ( standing) can lead to trouble. The person you are sueing will be able to counter sue you and get all of his legal expense paid by you.

If his car had hit the other car and it had been the drunk drivers fault, yes you could sue the heck out of the bar. And yes with your evidence you could win, but if his drinking had nothing to do at all, no way, no how, with the accident, there is no liablity at all for him to be at fault. He the driver who was drunk is not at fault, the bar can not be held at fault.

*** side note, if McDonalds sells you 3 Big Macs a day and you go to the hospital for high blood pressure, is McDonalds liable?

Now they have perhaps a criminal issue, and you should and can turn this information over to the police.

But I can't see any attorney in his right mind even bringing this case on the bar to trial unless you can prove the drunk driver had some responsiblity on the accident. The only thing I can think is an attorney may hope they would give a small settlement instead of hiring an attorney and the such.

Honestly if you go through with this ( and the drunk driver was not at fault in the accident like you said he was not) the bar will and can countersue you and they will have a good case.

With very few exceptions(spouse of driver, etc)... if you are a passenger in a two car accident you are suing both drivers no matter what. There are a couple reasons for this:

1. There are very few accidents that are 100% the fault of either driver. AN example in the present case. The car that our guy was traveling in may have been hit... but had the driver of our vehicle not been drinking, he may have reacted faster, thus avoiding the accident, or mitigating the damages.

2. At the point where you have to file a Summons and Complaint(very soon after the accident) no one is in a position to opine on liability to a 100% certainty. I have seen trials where a police report pinned liability on one car(note that statements made by officers in police reports as to liability are usually inadmissible unless the officer witnessed the accident), and an accident reconstruction expert convinced a jury of 60% liability the other way.

3. I don't necessarily agree with the DRAM SHOP ACT, but as a plaintiff's attorney, it is my obligation to pursue a DS claim on behalf of my client (it would be malpractice not to). I personally think the law places too much responsibility on an individual bartender who may have 100 different customers in a night to ascertain who has had "one too many". This is not to mention the issues that arise when someone has been drinking at multiple establishments in one night, or may not appear intoxicated. The cases where a bartender picks up the passed out customer and gives him a beer are the easy ones. The tough ones are where a bar has 150 patrons and two bartenders, there is a line 3-4 people back from the bar and the bartenders are expected to "eyeball" someone's level of intoxication.

So the easy answer Chuck, is that of comparative negligence and timing. I speak from my extensive practical experience in these types of cases when I say that I don't care if the Pope himself was riding shotgun and says you did nothing wrong......if you were drunk....you are getting stuck with some portion of the liability.

According to the police report the officers who were on the scene feel that alcohol played a "part" in the accident. The .218 was considered as a factor as was the person who broad sided us. We are going by what the police report says. (I didn't feel it was my drivers fault because we were hit by another car). According to my lawyer (who read the police report) both things are a factor in the accident. The police report is mostly about the alcohol and describes the other car broadsiding us. So from what we have interpreted it contains two factors. Maybe we are wrong in thinking so.

According to the police report the officers who were on the scene feel that alcohol played a "part" in the accident. The .218 was considered as a factor as was the person who broad sided us. We are going by what the police report says. (I didn't feel it was my drivers fault because we were hit by another car). According to my lawyer (who read the police report) both things are a factor in the accident. The police report is mostly about the alcohol and describes the other car broadsiding us. So from what we have interpreted it contains two factors. Maybe we are wrong in thinking so.

As I was saying, it really doesn't matter what the officers say in their police report, or what their opinion is. Their statements are inadmissible. What state are you in?

Of course you can try and prove in court that the driver drinking was at fault in some way. If the official police report states it was an factor in the accident, but from the original posts ( sorry I did not read some of the between since some of them made no sence) we went from an original statement that the driver drinking was not at fault and his drinking had no part of the accident, to now the police report said it did.

Ok, that is why each party has an attorney who is telling their client they can win.

I am just saying that if the other driver has enough insurance to cover the entire accident, and you have documented injuries, you should get them to pay without any court action what so ever. No need to pay an attorney. ( sorry to the lawyers reading this)
As for as the bar, even if they loose, their insurance just pays the bill and nothing happens to the bar, since no criminal investigation or crime was determined.

You have choice one of an easy settlement and payment and a drug out law suit, Law suits like this with multiple parties and the such can take years to settle, my longest was 6 years and it was actually just settled in the benches before the judge came in to start the case.

I would want to read the police report to make a real official call, I can only refer to what is being written. And I hope your friend understand you sueing him also, since to sue the bar you have to sue him to prove he is at fault.

I am just saying that if the other driver has enough insurance to cover the entire accident, and you have documented injuries, you should get them to pay without any court action what so ever. no need to pay an attorney.

You never, EVER want to accept a settlement without consulting an attorney. The insurance companies will low ball the people they know don't have an attorney, and if they know you are not represented... there is no reason for them to up the offer (no litigation timetable... which is the only thing that will force a company to pay).

With all due respect to Chuck, the reality is actually the opposite of what he said. On a case where there is "enough insurance" you absolutely want an attorney because there eis more at stake. The only time you woul dnot want an attorney is a situation where the defendant has a state minimum policy (25K in NY) and your injuries are FAR beyond the value of the policy. In this case you are gettign the 25K either way, no need to give 1/3 to a lawyer. Trust me, the value added by having a lawyer in a big suit FAR outweighs the 1/3 you are going to pay him.

I don't agree, merely being over the legal limit while an offence to be ticketed for ( and possiblely the more seroius of the traffic tickets written on this accident) if the police department had a real traffic investigation, it will be specific as to how the accident happened.

A car eiher running a light, or stop sign or just pulling out, hitting a car moving in a legal manner. It is hard to show any proof of fault on the part of the driver in car 2 ( assuming it is car 2 since car 1 in police accident reports are suppose to be the car they believe at most fault.)

I would want to read the police report real close. And of course see what training the police officer had in traffic investigation, see if his post is current and so on. I do know how to try and shift blame.
But of course I answer to a higher judge these days, and I do like to perfer to look at what is morally right more than what can be done legally if you really want to.

I know we could destroy the character of the driver who was drinking, confuse a jury with experts showing how his driving was impaired and the such. Of course the driver in the other car will not argure this point, since it releases him of part of the liablity, his lawyer will be all for it.

I know the trend is to sue as many and for as much as you can. I would say since I now have two slightly different versions of the accident, I would have to say if the police report puts blame on both drivers, then yes but if it puts all the blame on the 1 driver I still would not do it.


Police report would be evidence in court, the officers could testify in court, if the police officers made any notes they could be used in court.
Photos the officers took ( I hope they took photos of the accident for evidence) As a traffic investigator I often testified in court. Even testified against city police who wrote up the reports wrongly.

Believe me I am not defending drunk drivers, they cause enough deaths and accidents, and I would like to see every bar in the US closed.
But I believe in putting blame where it belongs not trying to do social justice though law suits.

You know the one question I should have asked is actually what damages or injury you as the passenger received.

Do you have loss of work,

Do you have medical bills

Was anyone killed in the accident

Are there any permante injuries that will cause a disablilty.

This is the first rule you have to have a claim, I am assuming you do but as we were speaking about a settlement, if you have a bruise on the arm and went to ER and was released, with a 500 dollar bill, missed one day of work because you were tired from being at the ER,?

This is of course the fault and error of online help, we can't sit down and look at all your bills, look at the accident report. We don't know how your local judges rule, we had one in Atlanta, if a drunk driver was invovled, he was wrong no matter what ( not right but that is how he ruled)
We also had a defence attorney in atlanta that defended DUI drivers, I don't know of him ever, I mean ever losing a case, it cost 5000 just to get him to walk into the court room, but as I said he was good, he was part of the people who wrote the state DUI laws and knew every loop hole he helped create.

So we can give you opinoins, mine is not always based on what you can get by with legally, since guilty people get all allt he time, innocent people are convicted every day, and people who deserve large settlements get nothing while people who should get nothing will large awards. So I will always go with the moral side of law more than what a good skilled attorney could do. If it was all black and white we would not have two attorneys one saying their side was right.

I don't agree, merely being over the legal limit while an offence to be ticketed for ( and possiblely the more seroius of the traffic tickets written on this accident) if the police department had a real traffic investigation, it will be specific as to how the accident happened. (I am not telling you what is right or wrong, I am telling you what actually happens, which is what I believe the guy asking the question wants to know. And the reality is that if you were drunk, and involved in an accident, you are gonna share a portion of the liability in a civil action. Right or wrong...that's the way it works in the real world.)
A car eiher runing a light, or stop sign or just pulling out, hitting a car moving in a legal manner. It is hard to show any proof of fault on the part of the driver in car 2 ( assuming it is car 2 since car 1 in police accident reports are suppose to be the car they beleive at most fault.) (you show fault based upon the way that alcohol affects perception-reaction time. A normal sober person take .75-1.5 second to perceive a threat, then apply the brakes. An intoxicated person has a drastically different time as you might imagine. To use your example of an intersection collision.....assume two cars are traveling 40 mph as they approach an intersection, a one second difference in the time it takes you to hit the brake is the difference between a near miss and a broadside collision. But that is just one way you show it, I could give you a million, but you get the point.)

I would want to read the police report real close. And of course see what training the police officer had in traffic investigation(your average cop has nothing more than the brief training course they give in the academy of which accident scene investigation was a minor part, but it doesn't matter because the reconstruction experts brought in by both sides wil make the officer seem incompetant), see if his post is current and so on. I do know how to try and shift blame.
But of course I answer to a higher judge these days, and I do like to perfer to look at what is morally right more than what can be done legally if you really want to.

I know we could destroy the character of the driver who was drinking, confuse a jury with experts showing how his driving was impaired and the such. Of course the driver in the other car will not argure this point, since it releases him of part of the liablity, his lawyer will be all for it.

I know the trend is to sue as many and for as much as you can. (it isn't a trend....it is sound legal practice and protecting the rights of your client) I would say since I now have two slightly different versions of the accident, I would have to say if the police report puts blame on both drivers, then yes but if it puts all the blame on the 1 driver I still would not do it.


Police report would be evidence in court (of course it would be admitted, but the officers statements regarding liability would be redacted (erased) because they are heresay unless they witnesed the accident[they are taking someone elses word for the way the accident happened. They cannot testify to this, you must bring in the original declarent to testify]) , the officers could testify in court, if the police officers made any notes they could be used in court. (it would depend what the notes said, see above)
photos the officers took ( I hope they took photos of the accident for evidence) (the cops don't usually take pictures unless there is a death) As a traffic investigator I often testified in court. Even testified against city police who wrote up the reports wrongly.

Beleive me I am not defending drunk drivers, they cause enough deaths and accidents, and I would like to see every bar in the US closed.
But I beleive in putting blame where it belongs not trying to do social justice though law suits.

See comments above

You are blaming the bar for overserving your driver---you got in the car with him.

You said you didn't realize how drunk he was... but you expect the bartender should know? He was your personal friend and you were the one drinking with him. That brings in to play *your* blood alcohol level.

You broke your shoulder, but you stopped breathing twice. As an ER nurse, I see a lot more drunks who stop breathing due to acute alcohol intoxication than patients who stop breathing due to a shoulder fracture.

I can see your attorney attempting to get an adequate settlement to cover medical expenses, lost wages and even some "pain and suffering." But what you (your attorney) is doing seems to be the very thing that gives "personal injury" attorneys the ambulance chaser-bad reputation. The mud you throw is liable to fly back and stick on you.

Yes, and too many sue, sue and sue and want to settle, settle settly, very seldom seeing the inside of the court room. I know that the other expert that is an attorney either practices in a state where the law is different , since in the several states I have testified in court on, it does not work the way he believes it does. He seems to believe it works the way law school says it is suppose to. Wish it did.

A POST Certified accident investigator will measure skid marks, make notes of damage, where the parts of the car is. They will determine where the cars were prior to the accident and they will determine how the accident happened.

And yes they will testify in court how the accident happened from their evidence, it is all admitted and often will be taken more serous than the statements that the drivers and passengers made. And many do take photos on all accidnets with injuries. ( thanks to ditigal photos now adays)

A good investigator and look at severl cars and be able to tell where they were proior to the accident, about how fast each were going and yes they will know who was at fault and it will be listed directly on the police report and yes that part of the police report is used in evidence in both the criminal and the civil. Next if there is a civil case and the person does not plead nolo, that civil case and all of the evidence used in it, can be presented as evidence in the civil case.

Since I have been invovled on the prosecutor side of the criminal cases and had to testify many times in the civil in a few states, this is the way it really works. Guess your state is different but a good accident investigator is hired often by the defence to look at the evidence and to testify at how he things the accident happened.

And no there is no assumption of guilt because you are drinking. Yes it looks bad and normally the jury will assign blame, there is no for sure.
And this goes right to my largest complain, the court system is not wanting justice and to do what is right, it only wants to win regarless if it wins from the right person.

Yes, and too many sue, sue and sue and want to settle, settle settly, very seldom seeing the inside of the court room. I know that the other expert that is an attorney either practices in a state where the law is differnt , since in the several states I have testified in court on, it does not work the way he beleives it does. He seems to beleive it works the way law school says it is suppose to. Wish it did.

A POST Certified accident investigator will measure skid marks, make notes of damage, where the parts of the car is. They will determine where the cars were prior to the accident and they will determine how the accident happend.

and yes they will testify in court how the accident happend from thier evidence, it is all admitted and often will be taken more serous than the statements that the drivers and passengers made. And many do take photos on all accidnets with injuries. ( thanks to ditigal photos now adays)

A good investigator and look at severl cars and be able to tell where they were proior to the accident, about how fast each were going and yes they will know who was at fault and it will be listed directly on the police report and yes that part of the police report is used in evidence in both the criminal and the civil. Next if there is a civil case and the person does not plead nolo, that civil case and all of the evidence used in it, can be presented as evidence in the civil case.

Since I have been invovled on the prosecutor side of the criminal cases and had to testify many times in the civil in a few states, this is the way it really works. Guess your state is different but a good accident investigator is hired often by the defence to look at the evidence and to testify at how he things the accident happened.

and no there is no assumption of guilt because you are drinking. Yes it looks bad and normally the jury will assign blame, there is no for sure.
And this goes right to my largest complain, the court system is not wanting justice and to do what is right, it only wants to win regarless if it wins from the right person.

Well from what you wrote, it doesn't seem like you read my posts very carefully. FYI, (1) we have a set of FEDERAL rules of evidence that the states follow very closely in formulating their own rules, so much so that they don't teach anything BUT the federal rules in many law schools. (2) Heresay is heresay, no matter what state you go to. You show me a state that allows the admission of all heresay, and I will bow down to your superior knowledge.

In your vast experience, how many times is the officer that responds to an auto accident a reconstruction expert? Not very often, if ever.

"A good investigator and look at severl cars and be able to tell where they were proior to the accident, about how fast each were going and yes they will know who was at fault and it will be listed directly on the police report and yes that part of the police report is used in evidence in both the criminal and the civil. Next if there is a civil case and the person does not plead nolo, that civil case and all of the evidence used in it, can be presented as evidence in the civil case." Of course a good investigator can do all of those things. But the cop that shows up at an accident scene is not that guy. Even if he were that guy, his opinion about the way the accident occurred is just that....AN OPINION...unless he witnessed the accident. That simply does not get admitted in a police report...NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE. Now yes, you could have the officer come in and TESTIFY as to the way he believes the accident happened, and he will be subject to cross examination. But you can't cross examine a piece of paper, hence, opinions of investigating officers are redacted from police reports. I'm sure I could cite the law for you in a state of your choosing if you like.

"Guess your state is different but a good accident investigator is hired often by the defence to look at the evidence and to testify at how he things the accident happened." It doesn't matter what the "defense" says... when you are a passenger(like the guy asking the question) you ALWAYS WIN! As far as the passenger goes, BOTH parties are the "defense".


My experience come not from "what law school says should happen", but from representing people like the guy asking the question against the drivers and bars like the ones he is suing. I have handled several cases EXACTLY like the one we are discussing. There is no theory involved.

A word like "guilt" has nothing to do with a civil case(what we are talking about) and using it just confuses the issue. We are no talking about guilt, we are talking about LIABILITY. And in the real world, when negotiating settlements and influencing juries, prescence of alcohol means the intoxicated party is sharing SOME PORTION of the liability in 99% of the cases. FYI... when dealing with concepts such as "joint and several liability", often all you need is 1% liability to assume a large portion of the money paid.

Answer a few questions for me Chuck(since you should be familiar with the calculations)... no spin, just straight answers:

1. Alcohol affects ability to operate an autmobile. Yes or no.

2. Alcohol specifically affects a driver's ability to perceive and react. Yes or No.

3. A car travelling 30 mph is travelling at roughly 45 feet per second. Yes or No.

4. A typical passenger vehicle is 15-20 feet long. Yes or no

5. Once the brakes are applied, it takes an average car travelling at 30 mph approximately 46 feet to come to a stop. (assuming average, dry road surface) yes or no

6. If one driver (A) percieves and reacts to a threat in one second, (at 30mph) his car would travel approx 91 feet before stopping. Yes or no

7. If a second driver(B) perceives and reacts to a threat in 3 seconds, (at 30mph) his car would travel 181 feet before stopping. Yes or no

8. If you are travelling toward an intersection where a vehicle is going to "broadside" you, it is better to know sooner, than later. Yes or no

9. If driver A notices the broadside threat 100 feet prior to entering the intersection, they will bring their vehicle to a stop safely prior to a collision. Yes or no

10. If driver B notices the threat 100 feet prior to entering the intersection, they won't even touch the brake prior to the collision. Yes or no

Now the million dollar question...

Do you honestly mean to suggest that an increase in a driver's perception-reaction time would not be a factor in causing (or being able to avoid) an intersection collision?

And by the way, contrary to what you are implying... in the real world... courts ABSOLUTELY follow the rules of evidence. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Well we are just at an impass since I know for sure what really happens since I have been in those court rooms and I have testified as to the cause of an accident from the investigation that I personally did.

I have had tickets of city police departments dismissed from the evidence I have given. And my written reports have been given as evidnece as to the speed of the vechile, direction of travel and the such. Of course in the actual trial the police officer has to be present to present his testomony.

But a good defense attorney would also try to get any of the officers notes also, since they may have something about the accident, that is why the departments I have been invovled with always instructs the officers not to keep a pocket notebook about any of the cases.

The accident scene is a crime scene just not taken as serious normally by most people. The amount of damage, the amount of indentation of the metal, the resting spot all tells a story.

Today's officers are better trained than ever, most do take accident investigation classes that their state POST offer. The better ones can tell you the entire story of the accident. And to be honest if they are trained in courtroom testifying will eat up a defense attorney trying to make them look foolish.

I remember the last one in criminal court, wanted to make me look like a back woods red neck, showing I had racial prejustice. The only problem was that the report showed the criminal had a white shoes and the person who was arrested had black shoes. I guess if that is all you got, you go for it.
Well he tried to use the race card showing I was testifying against this man only because he was black. Well he did not do his homework, the fact my wife is black, my daughter in law is black was allowed in to show I was not prejudice.

I am just saying that I have been in the court room where the officer who did the investigation testified as to his evidence showing who was at fault.
And that it is allowed.

I would say that we are just of different opinions to this and have seen it work different in different courts over the years. A good police officers testimony will show facts for evidnece that he saw, measured and could determine from his training and past expereince and this normally determines which way the case will go.

Well we are just at an impass since I know for sure what really happens since I have been in those court rooms and I have testified as to the cause of an accident from the investigation that I personally did.

I have had tickets of city police departments dismissed from the evidence I have given. And my written reports have been given as evidnece as to the speed of the vechile, direction of travel and the such. Of course in the actual trial the police officer has to be present to present his testomony.

But a good defense attorney would also try to get any of the officers notes also, since they may have something about the accident, that is why the departments I have been invovled with always instructs the officers not to keep a pocket notebook about any of the cases.

The accident scene is a crime scene just not taken as serious normally by most people. The amount of damage, the amount of indentation of the metal, the resting spot all tells a story.

Todays officers are better trained than ever, most do take accident investigation classes that thier state POST offer. The better ones can tell you the entire story of the accident. And to be honest if they are trained in courtroom testifying will eat up a defense attorney trying to make them look foolish.

I remember the last one in criminal court, wanted to make me look like a back woods red neck, showing I had racial prejustice. The only problem was that the report showed the criminal had a white shoes and the person who was arrested had black shoes. I guess if that is all you got, you go for it.
Well he tried to use the race card showing I was testifying against this man only because he was black. Well he did not do his homework, the fact my wife is black, my daughter in law is black was allowed in to show I was not prejudice.

I am just saying that I have been in the court room where the officer who did the investigation testified as to his evidence showing who was at fault.
And that it is allowed.

I would say that we are just of different opinions to this and have seen it work different in different courts over the years. A good police officers testimony will show facts for evidnece that he saw, measured and could determine from his training and past expereince and this normally determines which way the case will go.

There is no impass, you have been talking about something completely different than what I have been talking about. Number one, this is a civil suit, and you keep talking criminal.

What I have said from the beginning, is that a police officer's opinion as to the way the accident happened is inadmissible IN THE POLICE REPORT. Hell, once the trial comes, I could bring my mother in to testify as to the way she thought the accident happened. But you aren't going to get a police report admitted as a business record with the officers OPINIONS present on the document.

Offering a piece of paper with someone's opinion written on it, in order to prove the truth of the statement is textbook HERESAY. Why do you think we have to bring witnesses to court for testimony rather than just submitting a written statement? If you want to get a statement into evidence, you have to bring the original declarent into court to say it in front of the jury.

"I am just saying that I have been in the court room where the officer who did the investigation testified as to his evidence showing who was at fault.
And that it is allowed." Of course it is allowed! Read my responses, I have never suggested anything to the contrary. This of course assumes that an investigation was done.

I think that we can agree that in your average fender bender, none of the responding officers are out there measuring skidmarks, calculating the coefficient of friction for the roadway, or even taking pictures for that matter. If they did, our taxes would go through the roof.

You never addressed the main points of my last response. Mainly that in a civil suit, if you are drunk you are paying something in 99% of cases. (mind you that I am not saying 100% liability, I am saying SOMETHING).

And that in the case of an intersection collision, someone who is heavily intoxicated is going to get nailed due to alcohol's effect upon perception-reaction time.

I am sure you understand these concepts if you have worked in the field.

Not only did I suffer a broken shoulder, but the whole right side of my body was tramatized. Internal organs (lung, kidney, etc.). I was not able to breathe because of the trauma to my right side. I could not work for 4 months. I could not sleep properly for 6 months. I would wake up in the middle of the night from razor sharp pain from my shoulder for 3 months. I am just now having surgery to repair all the damage to my shoulder because I have bones that are raising up under my skin and I did not want to miss any more work. This is the reason for initially going to see an attorney. I have no insurance. I am not a lawyer and did not know that I could have this taken care of by filing a claim. I am not aware of law and the procedures. I'm just a working guy who ended up in a bad situation. My attorney is the one who informed me of how things are done. My friend understands the steps that are being taken and knows why. He knows the part he played and is willing to except the decision that will be made. Neither of us wanted someone to decide they didn't need to stop and come into our path. Bars have insurance and they have insurance for this kind of reason. They know these kinds of things happen. A few of you sound like you have never heard of a bar being sued for something like this. It happens. My attorney said you can't sue one without suing the other. Basically meaning, there is liability from several parties. Did I want to be in an accident, no. Did I and my driver learn a lesson, yes. No one should assume they are o.k. to drive if they have been drinking. Never think that everyone out on the road knows how to drive and obeys the laws.