The driver’s condition is not an automatic indication of liability. Still, it does play a part in the determination of fault.
Studying the effects of an accident caused by an impaired driver
Take for example, a drunk driver slammed into the rear end of a family vehicle. The driver did not carry insurance, so the victim submitted a 1st person claim, He had purchased a policy with a provision for collision coverage. The driver’s agency did not get asked to cover any injuries in the rear-ended vehicle. However, the driver of that same vehicle had hit the car in front of him. The one passenger in that 3rd vehicle had reported an injury.
The insurance adjuster claimed that the driver of the rear-ended vehicle was partly to blame for the woman’s injuries.
If the case had gone to court, the jury would have required proof of 3 things
—A duty of care on the part of the man at the wheel of the rear-ended vehicle
—Evidence of the fact that he had breached performance of a recognized duty
—Evidence of a link between the breach and the reported injury.
The insurance company was counting on the fact that a jury would be apt to accept the final proof, because the drunk driver had been impaired, while sitting at the wheel of the vehicle. Of course, that would not prove the allegation about shared blame, as per personal injury lawyer in Guelph.
Why did the case not get decided in court?
Because the man that had submitted 1st party claims against his own insurance company had decided against hiring a lawyer. He had also decided against pursuing a lawsuit against the driver of the vehicle with the injured occupant. Instead, he settled for the compensation that the company offered.
Why were there no injuries in the vehicle that was rear-ended by the drunk driver?
There were no reports of an injury, because none of the occupants had received any form of medical attention. There were no evident symptoms on the night of the accident, or within the next 24 hours.
There were 2 children, in the vehicle, but their pediatrician never learned about the accident. So when the older girl had an unexplained dizzy spell, more than 2 years later, it was not connected to the accident. Yet she had suffered an earache on that night, and had not had access to a seat belt.
So, who paid for the damage? The insurance company covered the cost of the repairs. Consequences for injuries become the burden of the victim, who developed hydrocephalus. Thus, different injuries can affect the individual at another point in time.
