Or is it all the fault of the drunken party. Also the driver is obeying all traffic laws.
This question can't be answered in a vacuum.
There is a range of possible answers depending on how much of a chance the motor vehicle operator had to take evasive actions to avoid hitting the pedestrian whether by braking, turning away or otherwise. For example if the motor vehicle operator had 250 feet on a clear sunny day on dry roadway with no traffic and plenty of room to go around, they could face some liability. But if the drunk stumbled into the path of the car one foot away out from between parked cars giving no warning on a dark rainy night, the answer would be no liability on the part of the motor vehicle operator.
That's why the question can't be answered on the limited facts given.
Probably need some more information. Seems to be a bit rhetorical.
From a criminal defense standpoint and given the factual set-up, it would not seem the driver could be held "accountable." Not quite certain if we're talking about a CRIMINAL charge or CIVIL lawsuit.
If the driver is following all the traffic laws, meaning s/he would be going the posted speed limit, was keeping a good lookout, was not impaired, driving recklessly, texting, etc., and there would no way to avoid the collision, the State would be hard pressed to bring charges on that type of case.
Assuming this is a CIVIL LAW question, my answer would likely be the same.
North Carolina is known as a CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE state. Under North Carolina’s longstanding contributory negligence doctrine, a plaintiff who is even 1% responsible for causing his own injury is barred from recovering damages, even if the defendant is 99% at fault.
If the person whom "stumbled into the roadway" was 1% (or more, as questioned appears 100%) at fault, they would not be able to recover under that theory of law. If the driver is obeying all the traffic laws, s/he could not avoid the collision and therefore could not be held liable as a "tort-feasor."
Give a bit more information please. OR if it's just an inquiry to settle a discussion, let us know if there are more facts that would help.
charlotte concord & brevard nc
NOTE: Although a response is provided to the specific question, there may be other facts and law relevant to the issue. The questioner should not base any decision on the answer and is specifically advised no client-lawyer relationship has been established. Put simply, seek the advice of competent counsel without delay to discuss the particular aspects of the case, factual scenario and historical background. NOTE: There may be other facts and law relevant to the issue. Readers should not base any decision on the;information provided herein and are specifically advised no client-lawyer relationship has been established. Put simply, seek the advice of competent counsel without delay to discuss the particular aspects of the case, factual scenario and historical background WHY: The content herein is provided for educational purposes and should not be inferred as applying only to DWI / DUI criminal defense. In fact, it may be equally relevant to claims of personal injury involving accidents and the consumption of alcohol or more simply, to the daily practice of law. Bill Powers lectures on such issues on a regular basis with the intent to educate, to be fair, to be accurate and to encourage, open, honest and scientific discussion on the subject. Attorney Bill Powers did NOT represent the Defendant in the particular cause of action.
Last Clear Chance is sometimes viable in such cases. If you can establish that the potential defendant had the time to see the drunk person, and the drunk person was in a helpless position and unaware of the approaching car- then you may overcome contrib.
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and advice about personal injury law.
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline