Do I need to engage legal representation in this case?

[quincy]

In other words, did the wife yield to all cars that stopped at the intersection before her.

Yes, I realize the OP says that the wife stopped at the intersection. However, nothing has been said about the other car in the accident.

Stopping at a stop sign is good. Proceeding to hit one or more cars after stopping at the stop sign, not so good.

Because Lot’s wife has an attorney, she might have a decent shot at having the intoxicated driving charge dismissed (if what we’ve been told is correct). But I think more might have happened at that intersection than even Lot knows.

 

[LdiJ]

Stopping at a stop sign is good. Proceeding to hit one or more cars after stopping at the stop sign, not so good.

Because Lot’s wife has an attorney, she might have a decent shot at having the intoxicated driving charge dismissed (if what we’ve been told is correct). But I think more might have happened at that intersection than even Lot knows.

It is possible that she could have been confused at the 4 way stop. It is not uncommon as people are not accustomed to them these days. Her age could have factored into confusion as well.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

It is possible that she could have been confused at the 4 way stop. It is not uncommon as people are not accustomed to them these days. Her age could have factored into confusion as well.

And there are those who choose to “beat” the other cars into the intersection. A well know intersection involving college students comes to mind to the point where the police need to be present at certain times to discourage that behavior.

 

[quincy]

It is possible that she could have been confused at the 4 way stop. It is not uncommon as people are not accustomed to them these days. Her age could have factored into confusion as well.

Age is a possibility. Medications is a possibility. Flip flops catching on the accelerator is a possibility. Distraction is a possibility. Lots of possibilities.

After the field test and after speaking with witnesses, however, there was some reason why Lot’s wife was cited for reckless driving and failure to stop/failure to yield. The intoxication charge is understandable because of the failed field test. The other charges are understandable because Lot’s wife was the only one ticketed for hitting another or other cars - and you typically don’t hit other cars when driving unless you are not driving responsibly.

Unless the car had a mechanical problem that can be blamed on someone or some entity, I don’t see Lot’s wife escaping all liability.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Age is a possibility. Medications is a possibility.

That poses another problem. But yes, if OP's wife's accident was caused by new side effects of a medication, it might decrease the liability if this is a new (to her) side effect.

But most such medications also should not be combined with alcohol.

Flip flops catching on the accelerator is a possibility.

A possibility, but not a valid defense. In fact, deliberately wearing flimsy footwear that could impair driving might be argued to be a form or impaired or reckless driving.

 

[quincy]

That poses another problem. But yes, if OP's wife's accident was caused by new side effects of a medication, it might decrease the liability if this is a new (to her) side effect.

But most such medications also should not be combined with alcohol.



A possibility, but not a valid defense. In fact, deliberately wearing flimsy footwear that could impair driving might be argued to be a form or impaired or reckless driving.

Yes. I really didn’t see either of those as a defense as much as possible explanations for the accident if the wife wasn’t intoxicated. There are not too many defenses available to drivers for hitting other vehicles.

 

[LdiJ]

Yes. I really didn’t see either of those as a defense as much as possible explanations for the accident if the wife wasn’t intoxicated. There are not too many defenses available to drivers for hitting other vehicles.

I was not considering age and and confusion to be a defense either. Again, I was considering it to be possible explanations. Nor did I indicate that she shouldn't be liable for the accident. The issue was being impaired due to alcohol consumption. Prior to my research I didn't think alcohol impairment was reasonable and I feel even more strongly about it after my research. Again, that has nothing to do with liability for the accident.

 

[quincy]

I was not considering age and and confusion to be a defense either. Again, I was considering it to be possible explanations. Nor did I indicate that she shouldn't be liable for the accident. The issue was being impaired due to alcohol consumption. Prior to my research I didn't think alcohol impairment was reasonable and I feel even more strongly about it after my research. Again, that has nothing to do with liability for the accident.

I understood that.

 

[quincy]

Lot, please add additional questions to this thread so everyone has the necessary background information. Thanks.

 

[quincy]

Lot, your wife has an attorney. All questions she or you have should be directed to this attorney.