Each state has passed several laws that govern how drivers must drive their vehicles on public roads. Many of these statutes are in fact codified versions of the common law, while others are the result of legislative initiatives. If you believe someone was to blame for an accident in which you were involved, you should have the facts of your claim reviewed by a lawyer as soon as possible. Contact an experienced car accident attorney today to see if you might be able to collect damages to cover your losses. There are two types of comparative negligence in the United States, as well as contributory negligence, so the damages awarded vary from state to state. Learn more about FindLaw`s newsletters, including our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. In its purest form, “fault” for causing an accident is either created by statute or defined by common law. The common law has four basic levels of fault: In criminal law, mens rea is used to decide whether the accused has criminal intent in committing the offence and, if so, whether the accused is therefore responsible for the offence. However, this is not necessary for offences of strict liability where no particular state of mind is required to discharge the burden of proof. In the case of coercion, the accused committed the act in response to a threat of death or serious bodily harm against himself or herself or a loved one or person for whom he feels responsible. Therefore, he is exempt from guilt because his actions were done to prevent such damage from being caused. It would be unreasonable to convict the accused of an offence committed under duress. Contact a qualified car accident lawyer to make sure your rights are protected.
Guilt is rarely discussed when a motorist has committed intentional or reckless misconduct, such as drunk driving. But when it comes to general negligence, determining fault becomes more complex. More than one motorist may be at least partially responsible. If this is the case, state law dictates who must pay for property damage and injury to the parties involved. Deciding who pays for damages or injuries in car accidents depends mainly on motor vehicle laws. This article explains the importance of car accident errors in relation to the common law and motor vehicle codes. In such cases of “property crime”, the accused may be held liable even if he or she did not intentionally or intentionally commit a crime. This is evident in R. v.
Larsonneur (1933),[2] where the defendant was French and entered Britain. She then tried to marry a British citizen, after which she would have been granted British citizenship, which could never be revoked later. However, the marriage was rejected and she was ordered to leave the UK that day (22 March). Instead, she went to the Irish Free State to look for a priest to marry her husband George Drayton. No priest could be found and Irish police ordered him to leave by April 17, in accordance with the Irish constitution. Larsonneur has still not left and was arrested on September 20. She was arrested by Irish police, where she was forced to deport her hometown, the United Kingdom. Upon arrival in the UK, she was arrested for “illegal alien”. The defendant was not at fault because she had not intentionally returned to the United Kingdom under the Aliens Act; However, she was still responsible for the crime under the Aliens Act, as it was not necessary to prove the voluntary nature of the act.
This was also evident in Winzar v. Chief Constable of Kent (1983) [3], where the accused was hospitalized by a friend who was concerned about his health. However, when the hospital determined that he was only drunk to the point that he was semi-conscious, they expelled him from the hospital. The accused could not return home due to intoxication and was responsible for intoxicated and disorderly behaviour. Although he was neither intentional nor guilty of the crime, he was held responsible and charged as such because it was a question of fact. The simplest way to apply the concept of proximate cause to a car accident is to ask whether it would be true that the accident “without” the offence would not have been committed.