Prang
- Thread starter sam705
- Start date
Whether he could help it or not due to blacking out is not the point, he is still responsible for his actions. This would need to be looked into to see if he should still even have a licence. Generally he has to inform the DOT of what has happened and they will either send him for a medical or suspend/disqualify him from holding a licence again until it can be shown he does not suffer from blackouts again. You do not want people who black out etc getting behind the wheel of a car.
What would you have said if he had knocked over someone and killed them? It wasn't his fault?
madmanmark82
Likes Dirt
i still recon its your brothers fault, why would someone be charged by the cops for running into someones car on "accident" causing no damage to public property?
And hes still going to have to pay to get his car fixed, and the person thats car he ran into will also have to pay for there car to get fixed. But i think that the insurance company will be doing some investagating to whos at fault as they would know more then that cop and they will want to pin it on somone so they dont lose any money
And hes still going to have to pay to get his car fixed, and the person thats car he ran into will also have to pay for there car to get fixed. But i think that the insurance company will be doing some investagating to whos at fault as they would know more then that cop and they will want to pin it on somone so they dont lose any money
sam705
Likes Dirt
That was the second time it had happened, the first time it happened he had an operation and the doctors were convinced they had fixed the problem. Luckily the first time it happepend, he just simply ran off a country road causing no damamge/harm.
It happened again, this was at the start of the year. He hasn't got his license back yet, but willl have it back very soon. It was to do with something tied in with what medication he was taking. If he had knocked someone over and killed them during his second episode, im interested as to whos fault it would have been?
The doctors said that he was fine to drive again, as they informed VicRoads they had fixed the problem.
Negligent driving maybe? I don't know what types of laws there are put in place.
His car is a write off.
The policeman has the final say, a traffic controller/policeman looks at the incident and makes the final decision.
The cop that informed us that he will be getting no fines said he doesn't beleive it will go any further.
All covered by insurance, except the excess which he will have to pay.
Tazed
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Actually, no, that's not how it works in this type of accident.
If he'd been hit in his car first, and had careened into other vehicles (the initial accident wasn't his fault) then it would be different.
It's cut and dried for the cops: avoiding anything, cars, people, animals, whatever, is irrelevant when one vehicle hits one or more stationary vehicles. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, which are hard to prove, and then often ruled out (such as mechanical failures).
Even then, they have to find someone at fault when property is damaged.
I've been in accidents where the blame was apportioned according to road rules - no logic played a part in it.
So even in this case, where logically, it wasn't intentional, the law is blind to that and it's simply 'one car hitting a parked car...'