@“VOLVO V70”
You make a good point
However, perhaps a few of the other regulars would like to add their opinions, now that more information is available
I added my revised opinion, after the whole story came out, and perhaps some of the others would like to add their thoughts
My (newly revised) thoughts are that all of my empathy for the OP went out the window as soon as he disclosed the alcohol factor. The only possible good news is that he might come away from this experience with some much-needed learning on more than one issue.
Hopefully, one of those lessons will be that alcohol impairs judgment, and it is clear to me that his judgment was impaired, as was the judgment (and driving ability) of the driver.
You learned a lesson. Call a cab when you’ve been drinking. Don’t let your slightly less drunk than you friend drive your car.
Oh, and when you ask for advice, don’t lecture the people who take the time to give it to you. That’s another good life lesson to learn.
The cops must have been in somewhat of a blase’ mood or both of you would have ended up in jail.
Given the recent purchase of the car for cash and party time I have to wonder about another aspect of this although that’s probably best left unsaid.
It’s a pretty expensive life lesson to learn but the one upside anyway is that no one was hurt.
I still don’t think we’ve heard the whole story . Drunks wreck , the cops don’t even write a report much less issue a citation for failure to maintain control . This story doesn’t pass the smell test .
Sloepoke, you may be right.
I stand by my post. Anyone who gives the keys to their car to a drunk is complicit in and shares legal liability and moral responsibility for any damage they do. If you doubt my word, post the question on a legal forum. And being drunk yourself is no excuse.
Drinking and driving don’t mix. Ever. The OP may not have liked hearing it, but if this event gives him a hint of the destruction that is possible when mixing drinking and driving than I accept his reticence. I realize this is all part of growing up, but I just hope this helped the process along.
That's why I have the minimal liability insurance coverage on my 95 Nissan Pickup in Minnesota.It makes sure that if I damage someone else’s property with my vehicle, my insurance company pay’s for those damages.
But I end up with the wrecked vehicle.
Good luck with that if you have any assets. You get in an accident where it’s your fault…and you injure someone…expect to loose your house and any other asset you possess.
I understand that insurance follows the driver, not the car.
They can follow both. Insurance companies go after the cars insurance FIRST. If you’re driving a friends car and cause damage to the car and someone else…first the insurance company goes after the insurance of the vehicle .If that isn’t enough coverage to cover the liability damage then they can go after the drivers insurance. Driver doesn’t have any insurance they can go after his/hers assets.
You don't want to wreck a rental car without have a policy with collision coverage.
That depends…I’m fully covered under my Visa Platinum card.
Mike makes an interesting point. Normally in the case where reasonable liability insurance is in effect a court will find “to the limits of the insurance” in most cases. If not, all bets are off.
But this is a risk decision we all have to make. Me, I don’t have assets sufficient to make me a target. In my case, unless I was seriously negligent in some manner, the courts would be unlikely to tag assets beyond the coverage. And if I were seriously negligent, I’d deserve to lose everything. The “top 1%” have a different problem. People play “ghetto lottery” with them.
My brother who lives in NY (no fault state) was hit by a drunk who ran a red light. 5 surgeries and $400k later…brother gets a lawyer and goes after the drunk. His insurance was the state minimum…brother ended up taking his summer home and a boat.
And the drunk probably thought the cost of the liquor was high. 
IMHO drunk drivers deserve whatever they get (lose). And often much more.
I’m a stinker on this issue.
I remember at the trial…the drunk was constantly saying how it was an accident - he didn’t mean for it to happen.
How do you accidentally get drunk??
LOL, good post. I agree 110%. Sounds like the judge did too! 
I'm a stinker on this issue.
No you’re not. That’s the attitude everyone should have on this issue. Drunk driving is attempted negligent homicide. No two ways about it. I think the penalties should be much harsher than they are. There are people running around with DWI convictions in the double digits, and they still have a drivers license. That’s insane.
It’s also crazy to insure only to state minimums for liability. Some state minimums are absurdly low. It’s $60k personal injury per accident in my state. When my dad spent the last week of his life in the hospital, he racked up more than that and all they did was oxygen, some drugs, and a feeding tube. No tests, xrays, nothing. You mangle someone in a car wreck and you’ll hit state minimums just from the hospital bed charges.
And then it’s a $10k minimum for property damage. Have fun with that if you hit a new Civic, much less something on the expensive side. There are a lot of BMWs in my town, and those things start at 5 times the state minimum and go way up from there.
Thank you, shadow. I only wish everyone felt the way we do.
People with no assets take minimum insurance all the time. They are considered judgement proof. People have gone bankrupt paying for medical bills because they were hit by a reckless driver with no insurance.
True, Mike, but the gist of the insurance discussion has focused on “losing your house,” which would mean you do have assets to lose. I do know a guy in California who’s most valuable possession is probably his television, and who’s trying to work in movies, which means he never has a steady job. He’s not taking much of a financial risk by insuring to minimums because he’s judgment-proof. Many of us, however, have considerably more in assets that we would do well to protect.
I also think there’s an ethical component to the discussion that we haven’t touched on. As you said, people go bankrupt because they get hit by someone who isn’t properly insured. That’s wrong - it’s incumbent upon all of us who participate in the privilege of driving to make sure that if we screw up, the person we hit can be made financially whole. In that, the guy in California I know, who is a terrible driver and has caused a number of wrecks which were much more expensive than the minimum insurance level (especially the one he caused while driving around without insurance at all), is morally bankrupt to continue causing wrecks that the other driver ends up paying for.
I also think there's an ethical component to the discussion that we haven't touched on. As you said, people go bankrupt because they get hit by someone who isn't properly insured. That's wrong
Moral or not…that’s reality. I agree…but people in those situations are always looking for the lowest price…PERIOD.
And because of these people it’s always a good idea to get Uninsured/under-insured coverage.
I have to agree with that. Having sufficient liability coverage is not just to protect yourself but also to provide for the harm you have done. Hardly anyone ever intends to hurt someone else, so they are unintended accidents that we need to provide for. Turn a 35 year old MD into a paraplegic and what would the lifetime costs be for that?