How impaired must a defendant be for there to be a presumption under the law that the defendant was negligent?
In reality, there is never a presumption that a drunk driver is negligent. Under Minnesota Law, an individual operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of .10 % is in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 169.121. A violation of this statute is prima facia evidence of negligence but does not rise to the level of creating a presumption of negligence. In effect, prima facia evidence means that the mere fact someone is intoxicated is sufficient to allow a finding of negligence by the jury after considerations of all the other factors involved in the accident.
A defendant will be presumed to be negligent for causing an accident if you can establish that the driver’s physical or mental abilities were so impaired by the drug or alcohol use that they could not drive with the caution or ability of a person of ordinary prudence and skill in similar circumstances. Thus, a person can have a few drinks or drive under the influence of prescription drugs without being presumed to be negligent.
Related Questions
- How impaired must a defendant be for there to be a presumption under the law that the defendant was negligent?
- How impaired must a driver be for there to be a presumption under the law that the defendant was negligent?
- Is there any chance that the cross defendant may be charged guilty in a civil case?
