Drunk Driving Accidents Information Center

• Return to Main
• Drunk Driving Accidents - An Overview
• Civil Claims for Drunk Driving Accidents
• Third Party Liability in Drunk Driving Cases
• Dram Shop Acts
• Defenses to Drunk Driving Injury Claims
• Frequently Asked Questions about Drunk Driving Accidents
• Drunk Driving Accidents Resource Links
• Drunk Driving Accidents Contact Form

Dram shop liability is the legal idea of holding businesses — like bars, liquor stores and restaurants — accountable for the harm that intoxicated or underage patrons cause. When a bar over-serves someone or when a liquor store sells to an underage person, these businesses can sometimes be forced to pay for the harm they indirectly cause.

Defenses to Drunk Driving Injury Claims

The defenses to civil drunk driving claims can vary by state and the circumstances of each case. The information provided here will give you a brief overview of some of the defenses that may be claimed. Contact Solomon & Relihan in Phoenix, Arizona to learn more about the types of defenses that may be used against you. An experienced personal injury attorney can evaluate your claim and help you plan accordingly.

Contributory Negligence

In jurisdictions that recognize contributory negligence, the plaintiff can be barred recovery if his or her own actions contributed in any way to the injuries. Even if the drunk driver is found responsible for 99% of the accident, the plaintiff still will not recover any compensation. Only a minority of jurisdictions follow this rule.

Comparative Negligence

Most jurisdictions have adopted comparative negligence rules over the stricter contributory negligence standard. In these jurisdictions, the damages award is reduced to reflect the plaintiff's proportion of fault for the accident. Thus, if the plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault for the accident, he or she will only collect 80% of the damages. Some states have a hybrid comparative negligence rule in which the plaintiff is barred recovery if his or her own negligence is greater than 50%.

Assumption of the Risk

This defense normally is asserted by defendants when passengers of drunk drivers bring suit. For a defendant to successfully claim the passenger assumed the risk, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff passenger was aware of the risk, understood the nature of the risk and voluntarily chose to assume the risk by riding with the drunk driver. Thus, the passenger had to know the driver was intoxicated at the time he or she got into the car.

Sudden Emergency

In order for a plaintiff to win damages from a drunk driver in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove that the drunk driver's conduct fell below the standard of care. Intoxication alone may not be enough, depending on the jurisdiction. Consequently, a drunk driver may attempt to show he or she did not breach the standard of care by claiming a sudden emergency caused him or her to act in a way that led to the accident. In order for this defense to be successful, the defendant must show the existence of a true emergency. Also, the defendant must show that he or she acted in the same way that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. The defendant's own intoxication may not have caused the emergency.

Conclusion

The person responsible for your injuries may claim other defenses than those listed here. It is important to have an experienced attorney review the circumstances of your claim and plan the best strategy for your case. To speak with an attorney about your case, contact Solomon & Relihan in Phoenix, Arizona. He or she can help you prepare the best possible case for recovery of the damages you suffered in a drunk driving accident.

Copyright ©2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Business

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.

Return to Main