If a driver hits a drunken pedestrian, whose fault was it?

Question

This happened during darkness. Pedestrian was walking on the side of a road, not well lighted.

Very similar to a deer crossing the road at night, pedestrain may have been bobbling, but didn't survive to tell their story.

The consensus so far is it's the driver's fault.

I know if this happened to me, I will never be the same.

This is a serious matter when one considers that vehicles do kill.

That is why I use full caution when driving.

It's called having a conscience.

Answer 1

That's an unfortunate tragedy. I don't believe that the party that hit would be at fault. However, that person would always have to live with that. Such a tragedy!

Answer 2

It depends on whether the driver could have avoided it. If someone just darts out onto the road in such a way that there is no way for the driver to break or swerve then it's the pedestrian's fault. Also if one party has broken the law in any way the criminal is considered to be at fault pretty much regardless of other circumstances.

OTOH proving that was what happened is hard to do so realistically if the driver stops then it's pretty unlikely that anything will be done to the driver.

Answer 3

In spite of what people have written, pedestrians DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE RIGHT OF WAY. If this were true, crosswalks, jay walking tickets, and the red/green hand signal at intersections, even sidewalks, wouldn't exist.

As for your question, depends....was the pedestrian crossing at an intersection, in a crosswalk, with the Green blinking man saying he could cross...or did he just walk right into traffic? Did the accident happen on a dark street or well lit? What color clothing was the person wearing? Did anyone else avoid the pedestrian? Why couldn't they be seen? Why couldnt the driver avoid the accident? TOOO many unknown answers to way too many questions.

Answer 4

It depends where the drunken pedestrian was. How the driver hit the pedestrian also needs to be taken into account.

Answer 5

The drivers fault, for not being able to throw their eyes around every bend or parked car.
On a serious note. The drunk would STUMBLE onto the road, giving the driver time to brake.
But lets say the drunk got into a fight in a bar, and high-tailed it out the door of the bar, straight onto the road, directly into traffic, then it's the drunks fault. But if you are in NZ, you better hope drunk survives, or driver be going down for manslaughter. And that'll suck.

Answer 6

Uh, no. You pay attention people say that each and every physique the time, do you? No, that line of thinking isn't analogous to the way we handle date rape victims. Going to a party and having one too many isn't comparable to stepping in front of a rushing vehicle. that's achievable to circulate to a party and have one too many and not be raped. no longer each and every party includes rapists. In asserting that, if a woman gets below the impression of alcohol that's okay to rape her, you're condoning crime. right here is an analogy: if people did no longer very own costly issues, they might not be victims of burglery. for this reason, housebreaking should not be considered against the regulation. What you're asserting is that no lady ought to ever drink at a party. Are you confident you never choose to circulate to a party that has females at it? The deeper difficulty along with your reasoning is that that's ok for a guy to rape a woman if she's no longer able to asserting no or getting away. you're additionally asserting that there is no longer something incorrect with the rapist. That rape isn't incorrect. you're merely incorrect. Forcing intercourse on somebody who would not choose it quite is morally criminal and could be legally criminal, too. quite of asserting that sufferer of rapes are in charge for an act they did no longer commit, why do no longer you blame the wrongdoer? Is "consent" an impossible concept for men to hold close? never suggestions, i understand the respond, and that's "no." maximum men understand that rape is incorrect. people who don't are attentive to it may face the outcomes for their crimes. extra useful nonetheless, they ought to be made to undersand that that's incorrect in the previous they actually commit the crime.

Answer 7

It was the drivers fault--- He should not have been driving on the sidewalk.. Motorist should always be on the look out for drunks walking on the side of the pitch black road...

Answer 8

Well, right or wrong, the pedestrian always has the right of way.
Basically, they'll say that the driver should've been aware of what the pedestrian was doing, and the possibilty that he/she might be inebriated because the driver is the one who is surrounded by 2 tons of metal.

Answer 9

The driver. Drunken or sober, pedestrians always have the right-of-way. Drivers need to be on their toes at all times.

Check the law - pedestrians ALWAYS have the right-of-way! Granted, the driver wasn't malicious & more than likely would not be charged with a crime.

Answer 10

Driver.