RTA with intoxicated pedestrian
- Thread starter Suz2015
- Start date
Right Winger
Registered User
- Messages
- 293
Yes. They can also be 100% to blame. Or 0%. Depends entirely on the circumstances.
GrossOrNet
Registered User
- Messages
- 21
I have nearly hit a person crossing the M50 as a pedestrian between exit 10 and 9 Northbound last year. I was in the middle lane doing close to 100 kph. I wasn't the first in front so didn't see the map due to the other vans in front. A few divers hit the breaks suddeny and I realised it must be some rock, peace of plastic or even a dog possibly walking on the road. It was just around 2-3 sec I had to react and swang to the left. I only realised I should have checked the left side of there's any car before making a maneuver, but that worked as a survival instinct (you do what you see and are aware of). Glad there was no car on the left. I looked the man on my rear view mirror for a second and he was absolutely fearless and nonresponsive to the traffic which made me think he was intoxicated or having a mental episode/condition. I haven't seen anything on the news that week so I hope it ended up ok. I haven't called gardai as I didn't have my phone ready to use for a hands free. So I took the very left lane and kept going in a slight shock.
Right Suz! While you're driving your car you hit a pedestrian that you think is intoxicated from alcohol. The case goes to court for whatever reason. Likely the legal eagle representing the person who was behaving like a drunken misfit asks you "What qualifications have you to say that anybody is intoxicated?" Suddenly, you're the defendant.
You have my sympathy. I would have driven to the nearest garda station and reported the matter.
Jill Royce
Registered User
- Messages
- 12
So basically you were driving at 100 kmph in the middle lane tailgating the vehicle in front of you while the left-hand lane was empty ?
Yes it might be better not to outright call them intoxicated but to stress if they took specific actions you can witness without regard for their safety... eg unsteady on feet, stepped out without looking, walking on the road, crossing at red man.
Last edited:
I wonder does the OP's question arise because of something that did happen, or is it a notional one?
A person who is intoxicated in a public place to such a degree that they pose a danger to themselves or others is committing an offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act.
However if such a person is struck by a vehicle, and injured to the extent that they are removed by ambulance from the scene, then proving that they were intoxicated could be problematic.
Dashcam or CCTV footage, if available, showing such a person's actions immediately prior to the collision would be very desirable as an aid to a potential prosecution, or indeed to defend a civil action for damages as a result of such a collision.
If the OP's question was aimed at determining the civil liability of such a drunken person then Right Winger's reply at post #2 is correct.
As an aside, unless there's been recent precedent I'm unaware of, the Courts will in general accept the opinion evidence of a Garda as to the intoxication of a person. The same does not extend to civilian witnesses.
A person who is intoxicated in a public place to such a degree that they pose a danger to themselves or others is committing an offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act.
However if such a person is struck by a vehicle, and injured to the extent that they are removed by ambulance from the scene, then proving that they were intoxicated could be problematic.
Dashcam or CCTV footage, if available, showing such a person's actions immediately prior to the collision would be very desirable as an aid to a potential prosecution, or indeed to defend a civil action for damages as a result of such a collision.
If the OP's question was aimed at determining the civil liability of such a drunken person then Right Winger's reply at post #2 is correct.
As an aside, unless there's been recent precedent I'm unaware of, the Courts will in general accept the opinion evidence of a Garda as to the intoxication of a person. The same does not extend to civilian witnesses.
Jill Royce
Registered User
- Messages
- 12
Yes proving intoxication can be difficult.
Last edited:
Jill Royce
Registered User
- Messages
- 12
GrossOrNet
Registered User
- Messages
- 21
Wow, much of assumptions? You should apologise for this. Just because I didn't mention the other details in my already long post, it doesn't mean you should create your own fantasies. Wouldn't be more appropriate to just ask instead assuming? There were other vehicles on the left FYI. And I wasn't tailgating FYI. The nature of the van is they are taller and doesn't have a back window meaning I can't see a traffic as good as through the cars. This is even mentioned in the ROR that during heavy traffic (it wasn't that much heavy, just a regular traffic flow) that it's recommended to look through the other cars, if possible, to predict a traffic in front. So, again, just because I didn't mention or didn't explain the way you would picture it differently, doesn't mean it was the way are imagining. Reading comprehension skills and a basic ethics. I also must mention, ad obviously, you need all the info to be served to you on the plate, as you're too lazy to ask, and I need to think for you, predicting what you might fantasise falsely again, that I saw the man jumping over the traffic of the opposite direction separation wall, and this is when I started reacting. However, I didn't expect that person walking into the traffic at a pace.
Again, you should apologise, as you weren't there.
Last edited:
Jill Royce
Registered User
- Messages
- 12
Tailgating is the action of a driver driving behind another vehicle while not leaving sufficient distance to stop without causing a collision if the vehicle in front stops suddenly.
By your own admission you had to swerve dangerously into the lefthand lane to avoid a collision with the vehicle in front of you. What would have happened if there was a vehicle in the lefthand lane ?
By your own admission you had to swerve dangerously into the lefthand lane to avoid a collision with the vehicle in front of you. What would have happened if there was a vehicle in the lefthand lane ?
The problem is that if you do leave a safe distance on a motorway someone will pull in between you and the car in front. It is a constant problem for HGV drivers.
Unless you're taking a blood sample, proving they're intoxicated at the scene isn't possible either. Without independent witnesses, all you can do is describe your version of events, the Gardai will obtain the other party's version and decide how to proceed from there.
A decent dashcams could be a bonus in such an event.
NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
Intoxication of a pedestrian is unfortunately only likely to be proven conclusively in the case of a fatality.
The data from the US is quite striking as to the risks of drunk walking.
I barely drink these days but in my drinking years used to prefer to sober up a bit before bed via a long walk home instead of bus/taxi. For sure I was nowhere near as alert crossing roads as when sober.
The data from the US is quite striking as to the risks of drunk walking.
I barely drink these days but in my drinking years used to prefer to sober up a bit before bed via a long walk home instead of bus/taxi. For sure I was nowhere near as alert crossing roads as when sober.
I can walk to my local in 10 minutes but it takes 30 minutes to walk home when drunk. The difference is staggering.
DirectDevil
Registered User
- Messages
- 920
The first thing that is considered is how well, or otherwise, the driver has conducted the driving of the vehicle.
If the driver has taken all reasonable care the pedestrian should expect his claim to be thrown out.
Negligence is failure to do what a reasonable driver would do or doing something that a prudent and reasonable driver would not do.
Some judges like a bit of social engineering and may well find some liability to see the claimant does not leave empty-handed :mad:
Contributory negligence means that the claimant has shown by their conduct a lack or want of care for their own safety and wellbeing.
Contributory negligence can relate to causation of the accident.
It can also relate to the degree that the claimant's conduct has caused their injuries to be more serious than might be expected.
Ultimately, the contributory negligence issue turns on the individual facts of the individual case.
As far as intoxication is concerned your only hope in pleading it is if you get discovery of hospital records showing a particular alcohol level.
Evidentially, it is easier if you kill the pedestrian as the alcohol and other gunge in their system will show in the post-mortem screens.
If the driver has taken all reasonable care the pedestrian should expect his claim to be thrown out.
Negligence is failure to do what a reasonable driver would do or doing something that a prudent and reasonable driver would not do.
Some judges like a bit of social engineering and may well find some liability to see the claimant does not leave empty-handed :mad:
Contributory negligence means that the claimant has shown by their conduct a lack or want of care for their own safety and wellbeing.
Contributory negligence can relate to causation of the accident.
It can also relate to the degree that the claimant's conduct has caused their injuries to be more serious than might be expected.
Ultimately, the contributory negligence issue turns on the individual facts of the individual case.
As far as intoxication is concerned your only hope in pleading it is if you get discovery of hospital records showing a particular alcohol level.
Evidentially, it is easier if you kill the pedestrian as the alcohol and other gunge in their system will show in the post-mortem screens.