There was an auto accident with two vehicles. Vehicle 2 was at fault of the accident. However vehicle 1 was revoked of his liscence and did not have a liscence at the time of the accident. He was issued a 511.1A. Does it matter that driver one doesnt have a liscense?
2007-12-27 09:16:51 · 8 answers · asked by steady 1 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Insurance & Registration
It does not matter that one of the drivers did not have a drivers license.
There is no valid "but he should not have been on the road for me to hit" defense.
If my 5 year old cousin - was driving my car down the road - she is legally stopped at a red light and you struck her vehicle in the rear - you are still at fault. Even though she is 5 and should not have been driving my car. Now, my cousin will probably get charged for driving with out a license - I'll probably get in trouble for letting my 5 year old cousin borrow my car - but you are still negligent for causing the accident and will have to pay for the damage to my car and any injuries my 5 year old cousin sustains.
2007-12-27 13:08:21 · answer #1 · answered by Boots 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Driver of Vehicle 1 will be deemed to have broken the law for driving without a valid license (see Paris Hilton).
Driver of Vehicle 2 will be deemed at fault for the accident and will have to pay the claim on the accident. Actually if Vehicle goes through insurance, the company will pay and charge for an at fault accident increasing the premium for approximately 40 months. This accident will be on the driving record.
2007-12-29 08:12:59 · answer #2 · answered by Advantage-ME 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whether a person has a dl or not does not determine who is at fault of the accident. There will be separate consequences for Vehicle 1 not having a DL.
2007-12-27 09:25:18 · answer #3 · answered by cdm 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The person who caused the accident is at fault. The other person is only in trouble with the law. His driving illegally does not shift fault upon him.
2007-12-27 10:04:14 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix: Princess of Cupcakes 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the car is now more used then when you bought it, giving you what you paid would be letting you benefit from the accident. You would have gotten to use the car for free. Suppose someone had a 20-year-old that they had bought new and were amount to junk (for nothing) when someone hit it, so they got reimbursed for what it cost new? If you disagree with their offer, you do not accept the offer. Then you sue them.
2016-05-27 08:22:17 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
#2 gets cited for causing the accident and #1 is cited for driving on a suspended license. He will also be delt with for not having insurance too.
Retired state trooper.
2007-12-27 09:36:12 · answer #6 · answered by Dana 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not in determining fault - but driver 1 will have their own set of fees and fines to contend with.
2007-12-27 10:05:55 · answer #7 · answered by Megan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If he was driving without a license, his insurance has a way to deny the claim as he was in breach of contract.
2007-12-27 09:25:04 · answer #8 · answered by Chris F 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋