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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If there is no other vehicle involved in the accident, then the only person who can be at fault is the underage driver.
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.
the driver at fault
Yes, because you
The at fault driver always has the primary liability for the damages they cause in an accident. (The guy who rams the other guy).
each contributes 50% to liability or fault.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
You get to, accident would not have happened if you werent on the road!
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.
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
unless the person meant to do it then you can
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.