DUI stand for driving under the influence. Anyone that has been harmed by a drunk driver has the right to sue that same individual. That rule would apply to those in another vehicle, as well as those in the drunk driver’s own vehicle.
Anyone that chose to file such a lawsuit would pursue one that had been based on negligence.
• The driver had accepted a duty, namely that of avoiding harm to others.
• The driver had breached that duty by demonstrating careless conduct.
• One of the driver’s passengers had been injured.
• The driver’s careless conduct had been the cause of that passenger’s injury.
The plaintiff would have the right to make a charge under the doctrine of negligence per se.
Drivers that have been charged with DUI have violated a traffic law. That was a law that had been designed to protect a certain group of people, those sharing the road with other motor vehicles. The injured passenger had been a member of the group that was supposed to be protected by the law that DUI drivers have insisted on breaking.
What the same plaintiff would have to prove, after making the charge?
Plaintiff would need to offer proof that the defendant had violated a law. Personal Injury Lawyer in Mississauga knows that the plaintiff would need to show that the violated law had been created and enforced for the purposes of preventing an incident such as the one that occurred.
Plaintiff’s final needed proof would relate to his or her position, with respect to the violated law. In order to win the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s case would need to show that, at the time of the accident, he or she had been a member of the class of people that were supposed to be protected by the violated law, which made it illegal to against drive while intoxicated.
What the plaintiff’s lawyer would not have to prove?
That attorney would not need to show causation, in other words to prove a link between the defendant’s behavior and the client’s injury. That need will have been eliminated by the fact that the charge had been made under the doctrine of negligence per se.
The law against driving while intoxicated had been created to reduce the chances for a collision such as the one that took place, causing the passenger’s injury. The legal system assumes that anyone that has violated that particular law has demonstrated in appropriate behavior.
A charge of negligence per se could be made against the defendant, who had put others in danger, simply by behaving inappropriately. For that reason, those that were subject to that same danger would not need to offer proof of causation, if any one of them were to become injured.
