3 glasses of wine could be 3/4 of a bottle. Consumed in 1 to 1.5 hours, that’s a lot of alcohol.
Certainly your friend could have sued for pain and suffering. That would have been easy to prove. It must have been a while ago. These days, politicians are big targets.
Ron-man, you speak as if you’ve never drove impaired. True?
Note that I didn’t ask you if you’ve never drove drunk. When I was flying, they taught us “IMSAFE”: illness, medication, stress, alcohol, fatigue and emotion. ANY one of which can render one medically impaired (and thus illegal).
I remember a (sober) drive home from a two day stay in Atlantic City without hotel. I never started to nod off (I’d have stopped if I had), but I noticed I wasn’t doing a good job of maintaining speed on up/downhills, and nearly missed an exit. I suppose I was about as impaired as someone at 0.08. If I wrecked, however, I doubt I’d be subject to the same vilification as I’d be if I was over the limit.
I remeber reading a study showing, at lower BACs, it was the COMBINATION of fatigue and alcohol that was deadly–envision drinks on Friday after a long weeks’ work. Of course, the driver’d be written up for the alcohol, even if it were the more minor contributor.
Funny how companies that MANDATE no-one drives home from the Christmas party won’t spring for a cab for an employee who just “worked a double.”
That’s Easy For You To Say …
Friends, the man crashed admittedly as a result of having drunk too much. His breathalizer confirmed that he was above the legal limit.
The crash, the breathalizer, and his own admission prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was driving drunk, just as surely as Newton’s apple dropping to the ground proved the existance of gravity.
This was not an unfortunate mistake, and there are no more details needed. The man was driving drunk. He could have killed someone. Many thousands of drunk drivers do every year.
Offer him your sympathy if you like. Personally, I think the states should confiscate the vehicles of convicted drunk drivers, auction tham off, and use the funds to educate people not to drive drink. Confiscation of their vehicles is the only wasy we’ll significantly reduce drunk driving.
Yes sir, that is true. Having grown up with a functioning alcoholic father, and having worked as a bartender, I rarely drink. When I am impaired, whether it is from drinking, medication, or being tired, I climb into the vehicle, lean the seat back, and go to sleep.
I use a simple formula. After I have had my last drink, I wait at least one hour per drink for my body to metabolize the alcohol. That formula usually limits or eliminates my urge to drink if I am in a place where I don’t want to stay for a long period of time.
If I am at a bar, I ask the bartender to call me a cab. Most times the cab ride is free. A bar manager would rather pay for the cab ride than be sued for allowing a customer to drive drunk (which happens more than you think).
Paying for a taxi is so much cheaper than a fine and lawyer’s fees that calling a cab should be a no-brainer for even the worst alcoholic. In my book there is no excuse for impaired driving.
I concur…100%
Do you remember the Dushane (? on spelling) accident on rt 3 about 20 years…This idiot got on rt 3 at exit 1 heading south. In the break-down lane were two motorcycles that pulled over to put their helmets on (no helmet law in NH). On the back of one of the bikes was the drivers 12yo daughter…the idiot slammed into the bikes…KILLING the 12yo girl…This was the mans 12th DUI…and the SECOND time he killed someone. First time happened in the town he grew up in where his dad was the Police Chief.
I have 0 tolerance for people who drive drunk…ZERO.
Only once in my 42 years of practising law have I represented a client in a DUI, and that was more than 20 years ago. He wrecked his Porsche coming home from a party by driving it into a tree obn a city street. Fortunately, it was 3 a.m. and no person or animal was hurt. He called me at 3:45 a.m. ande I came to the police station. I handled the arrest and arraignment, but got him trial counsel. Small fine. I told him afterwards that the next time he called me I would ask the police to lock him up and throw away the key. More Americans have been killed and maimed by impaired drivers (whatever the cause for impairment) than have been killed or maimed by all the wars and terrorist attacks in our history. That said, I expect the insurers will pay on the claim, and raise your rates. And don’t expect the Lizard to bail you out either.
AMEN!!!
If your car is used during a crime or illegal activity such as street racing I don’t think they have to cover you, They shouldn’t cover you. I have farmers, Why should I pay for your car because you husband was ignorant enough to drive drunk, and you were ignorant enough to let him? Typical fellow American, Its someone elses responsibility to pay for my stupidity. Hopefully your husband loses his license and serves some jail time, Hopefully if he just gets a slap on the wrist it costs you alot of money.
Your insurance will pay for the damage to the car and then cancel your policy. Most likely, your only hope will be to obtain minimal coverage through an assigned risk pool. This will be very expensive.
My recommendation is to get rid of the car, particularly if public transportation is available. Your husband may lose his license for a period of time. He should use this period to get help. Alcoholism is a disease and most people consider a small glass of wine, if that, adequate with a meal. The price you are paying now is much less than if you or your husband or an innocent person had been injured or killed.
Bless you!
You may want to check with a lawyer. In CA, you can have your license suspended for DUI, which would make insurance a less important issue.
Just a general warning to everybody who drives. Decide which you would rather have, the drinks or the driver’s license. Three drinks or more may not be the reason for the accident, but if you crash, it will impair your license as well as your insurance.
I remember that one Mike. If memory serves that accident caused laws to be toughened up, but our system of jurisprudence still has the attitude that we should not go hard on the driver because it’s a disease, or because it was a human mistake, or because “that could have been me”, or for any number of other well-meaning but inane reasons.
We need to confiscate the cars of drunk drivers…impound tham until trial and confiscate them of they’re found guilty…even if they’re not the owner. Take away their vehicles and give their friends and family members real reason not to loan them THEIR vehicles and the problem will solve itself.
Driving is a priviledge. Driving drunk is not.
Interesting that the original post was from the wife of a driver who crashed the car due to driving drunk and now would like the insurance to pay the damages.
Litahni,
You are INNOCENT of drunk driving. You are a victim of a drunk, and a drunk driver. You need help as much as any other victim. There are groups in which victims, including family members, can participate in the tackling the problems revolving around the drunk. Seek those out.
A sense of personal responsibility is really lacking in our society today. The driver in question was irresponsible–in the extreme–to drive while intoxicated. And, the wife of this DUI driver is a classic enabler–attempting to minimize her husband’s culpability, and trying to shield him from suffering any financial consequences as a result of his irresponsible actions. Her enabling behavior also represents a lack of personal responsibility.
Yes, wife and family will also suffer if he has to pay for the damage to the car, rather than having the insurance company pay, but in the long run, the family will suffer far more if they continue to enable his alcoholism. Just imagine how his family would suffer when he finally winds up killing someone if he is allowed to continue to drive like this with no real consequences. And, of course, the family of the person(s) killed by this guy will suffer the most.
Personal responsibility–What ever happened to it?
All depends on the auto policy. Interesting to read that “he had 3 glasses of wine with dinner.” Seems like majority arrested say that they had “3 beers.” They must have been really big, or he’s really small. That was the tavern league’s scare tactic statement when the state was going to reduce the BAC from .1 to .08%
The overwhelming majority of arrests are 2-3 times the legal limit.
DUI / OWI what ever. You can be arrested for either if any amount of intoxicant or drug influences driving. For alcohol, and I’m not sure of every state, the second portion of the arrest is for a violation of the prohibited alcohol concentration (ie. .08).
With a DUI conviction, the insurance company will think of the name Ben Dover for a number of years just like getting a speeding ticket is now. The insurance rate hike should also be a big deterrent.
The majority of arrests may be higher, but .11 was enough for him to wreck and thats why the limit is .08, thank God no innocent people were injured. Hopefully the drunk gets punished.
Depends on the wording in your policy.
It may specifically exempt them from paying in a DUI/DWI situation.
or
They will pay, and then dump you as a customer come renewal time and leave you scrambling to find insurance, generally with your state’s “Insurer of Last Resort” or jack your rates up to around $5000/year (per car) for the next 5 to 6 years.