answersLogoWhite
Auto Insurance
Auto Insurance Claims
Auto Accidents

Is a DUI driver automatically at fault in an auto accident in Washington state?

555657

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
2005-12-08 12:51:38
2005-12-08 12:51:38

In most states it is assumed that the driver with the last opportunity to avoid a collision is at fault. It is further assumed in most states that the impaired driver, since he was not able to respond properly to the conditions, is at fault by the fact that he/she should not have been on the road in the first place. Never drink or use drugs and drive while under the influence of those substances. Research has indicated that the first drink, just one beer or mixed drink, starts to slow your reaction time, diminish your ability to process multiple events that are happening and impairs your judgment. While that first drink (for most people) does not seem to be enough to make people unsafe drivers, at .08% BAC EVERYONE is significantly impaired. Whether it was the inability to make good decisions while impaired, the slowed reaction time or the inability to process multiple events while driving, the fault is properly on the impaired driver IN ALL CASES! Bottom line is that this question should never have been asked. If you're driving around drunk, and you get into an accident, regardless of why, you're liable due to the fact that you shouldn't be driving around at all, therefore, if you were not driving around, the accident would not have occured.

1

Related Questions

User Avatar

An unlicensed driver will probably get cited for not having a license and may even get their car impounded, but is not automatically at fault. The person that the police and insurance company determine caused the accident would be at fault.

User Avatar

You can automatically be at fault in an auto accident if you are the only driver involved; you were the driver who was not obeying the speed limit; if you were the driver who was not using safe driving rules; if you were breaking a law; if you were impaired. The most common cause for automatically being at fault is driving too close to the car ahead of you for the speed you are going and driving over the speed limit. None of these conditions are 100% automatically your fault but very close to that, especially if others involved in the accident were not doing any of the above.

User Avatar

No. Just the fact of being unlicensed does not mean that the driver did something that caused the accident. Being unlicensed is what is called a non-moving violation. Another violation of this type may be not having a current registration tag on the vehicle. Just because you don't have a tag on your car doesn't automatically make you at fault for someone hitting your car. Fault for the accident will have to be determined by the police officers after they investigate the scene and take statements from witnesses. The person who is driving without a drivers license will get a ticket for not being licensed and then whoever was at fault will receive a violation for whatever they did to cause the accident.

User Avatar

No, but if involved in an accident, even when not at fault, the drunk driver would still be guilty of, and could be charged with, DUI.

User Avatar

If there is no other vehicle involved in the accident, then the only person who can be at fault is the underage driver.

User Avatar

No, if you were negligent, and 'at fault' you still are, however, if they leave the scene doesn't sound like you will have to fix their vehicle, but you could still have a 'chargeable' accident on your policy.

User Avatar

He may be at fault for not having insurance. He may or may not be at fault for the accident. Whether or not a driver carries insurance is a separate issue than the one concerning who is at fault in an accident. Do not confuse them or let them overlap. A good, objective assessor won't.

User Avatar

The at fault driver always has the primary liability for the damages they cause in an accident. (The guy who rams the other guy).

User Avatar

Who is at fault has to do with the accident itself not the insurance coverage. A police report of the accident and looking at the proximate cause of the accident help determine fault.

User Avatar

No. No fault means exactly that. The driver not responsible for the accident cannot be held liable for injuries to any passengers in the at fault vehicle.

User Avatar

The fact driver B left the scene does not change that driver A is at fault (there are exceptions to driver A being at fault)Additional: While Driver A may have been the striking vehicle, Driver B MAY be at fault for "Changing Lanes Without Caution." Regardless of the circumstances of the collision itself, Driver B can be charged with "Leaving the Scene of an Accident."

User Avatar

It does not matter to an insurance company that the other driver had a suspended license. Liability is determined by the factors of the accident and the evidence put forth. The fact that the other driver had no license does not affect liability or the handling of the claim.

User Avatar

Yes, the driver who was at fault is responsible for the bodily injury for anyone who has been hurt in the accident. The percentage of payment that has to be made would depend upon the percentage of fault for the accident, the prevaling norms of the state or province where the accident ocurred.

User Avatar

You get to, accident would not have happened if you werent on the road!

User Avatar

Unable to answer - too little is known about the circumstances of the accident. Was the driver of the car you were in at fault? Was the driver of the other car at fault? Submit your medical claims to the appropriate insurance company and wait to be contacted for an offer.

User Avatar

The driver of the car will always be held at fault. when police and ambulence come to the scene they will automatically say it was the bikers fault. even if it was the drivers fault

User Avatar

The police arbitrarily chooses which car is considered Driver one and Driver two. You have to read the report to determine who is at fault.

User Avatar

Yes. It is the responsibility of the at-fault party to pay for the damage caused in an accident, regardless of the license or insurance status of the not at-fault party.

User Avatar

If that driver was found at fault, then usually it would.

User Avatar

The driver at fault is liable for the collision, regardless of the other driver's actions post-collision. The fleeing driver may later be brought up on Hit and Run or Leaving the Scene of an Accident charges, but that will not change the at fault liability.

User Avatar

Yes, but bear in mind that a person (driver) is not automatically liable just because there was an accident There must be actual injury and or damages and the driver must be determined "At Fault" for the accident. Otherwise there is nothing for them to be liable for.

User Avatar

Even if a driver was uninsured, the driver who was at fault is responsible for paying for repairs. Not having insurance does not take away responsibility.

User Avatar

The license status of the other driver has no bearing on your liability. If you were at fault you are still responsible for any damages and injuries. Just report it to your insurance company as you would any other accident.


Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.