Hit And Runs

apgambrell said:

When someone hits another person with their car but does not stop and the person who was hit ends up dying, what charges will the driver face?

I know one would definitely be failure to stop and render aid but I am unclear on what the other charges would be.

Click to expand...

It depends upon jurisdiction because the specific laws very from place to place, so you'ld need to check your story setting, but I would expect the minimum to be vehicular or involuntary manslaughter.

Big difference in charges not only from state to state, but what was the cause. If the driver is the cause of the accident, much more serious charges. If the victim was the cause of the accident, much less serious charges.

Understand that it is completely possible to hit a person while driving, kill them, and have absolutely no legal liability. If the accident is in that category, then the only charge might be hit and run/leaving the scene of an accident.

Problem is that if you leave the scene of the accident, it's a lot harder to prove that you weren't liable, including proving that you were sober.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

apgambrell said:

This ties back to my story where the suspect attacks the victim, but she gets away and he ends up running her down with his truck with the intent to silence her. He flees the scene and she survives then ends up dying in the hospital later.

So, he flees the scene and intentionally hit her. I'm not sure how it can be proved that he intended to hit her but the police CAN argue he meant to do it and bring harsher charges against him, right?

Click to expand...

Of course there could be other charges. What you describe is first degree murder, if they can prove it.

jclarkdawe said:

Problem is that if you leave the scene of the accident, it's a lot harder to prove that you weren't liable, including proving that you were sober.

Click to expand...

Ahh, but that's the fun. You don't have to prove you were sober. They have to prove you weren't. Drive directly to a bar and pound down a few shots, tell the bartender to call 911, you just hit someone in the road. Decent lawyer and you tested over the limit because you were drinking after the fact and you left the scene both because you didn't feel safe and you needed to call 911.

I'd have had fun as a lawyer, not so much in the studying for the degree part.

Jeff

apgambrell said:

This ties back to my story where the suspect attacks the victim, but she gets away and he ends up running her down with his truck with the intent to silence her. He flees the scene and she survives then ends up dying in the hospital later.

So, he flees the scene and intentionally hit her. I'm not sure how it can be proved that he intended to hit her but the police CAN argue he meant to do it and bring harsher charges against him, right?

Click to expand...

If you want to prove he intended to hit her, you can. If you want it to be ambiguous, it can be. We dunno what you're looking for.

Weaselfire -- Don't forget about civil liability. As you say, for criminal liability the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were under the influence when the accident happened.

Civilly, however, the plaintiff (victim) only has to prove that it is more likely then not you were under the influence to get a much larger jury verdict. Also, if the cops think you were under the influence, but can't prove it, can seek to get the results through something like a reckless operation conviction.

Leaving the scene to avoid a DUI conviction can be a very high risk approach.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe