Quote:
Originally Posted by 98tadriver
nah, never asked em.
You'd think that common sense would be to do a BAC test after an accident involving someone driving erratically and then crashing into me at 350AM on a friday night/ saturday morning.
I have a question for you guys- lets say its not totalled, but i want to part the car out. Do i just tell them ill fix it myself, and then theyll cut me a check for the damage? I mean, i cant see that being illegal, since the accident wasnt my fault, and if they caused X amount of damage, they owe me that amount. and seeing its my car and i own it, i should be able to choose what i want to do with the money right?
|
dont worry anymore about the bac test. it wont get you anything extra in whatever settlement his insurance comapny gives u for the car being hit. from that part of the report u posted, it shows you were not at fault. if you want to pm me and send a photo of the other sections of the accident report, i'll tell you what it means, and those will 99% show you were not at fault too.
yea, it sux to have the car get hit when u were not at fault.
as for giving a bac test. cops just cant go on common sense for administering the test. they have to have some type of reasonable suspicion. (such as slurring words, bloodshot eyes, odor of an alcoholic beverage, open container, or admission of drinking etc). when the officer got the statements from the driver regaring the circumstances of the crash, it is also the officers time to observe the driver for the above listed things. if the officer had no suspicion that the driver was under the influence of any type of medicine, alcohol, drug, substance, then there is no need for an exam
the guy got charged with reckless drving.. you got no charges..that is one huge indicator that u were not at fault in the crash. the bac test would not change this for any reason in dealing with insurance issues. it would only give u peace of mind to say.. my car was wrecked by a drunk jerk, instead of just a reckless jerk
