[wolffman]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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?

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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

[wynelle]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[sideoutshu]

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.

[wolffman]

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.