Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) often leads to an accident on the road. DUI accidents are often as serious as they are completely preventable. When drivers choose to operate their vehicles under the influence, they often face legal consequences for the harm they caused. These can include both criminal punishment and a civil damages payout to the people who suffered harm from the driver’s actions.
Recently, an article released the details from a crash report in a high-profile Indiana DUI accident. State police received a call just after midnight about an apparent truck accident on the highway. According to witnesses, the truck veered off the road and hit a guardrail, pushing it into the opposite lane. The truck then continued to drive the wrong way before striking a median guardrail and crashing into an embankment. Police then found the truck’s owner, State Representative Jim Lucas, who allegedly smelled of alcohol. He was transported to the hospital for a blood draw. Representative Lucas faces preliminary charges of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, causing endangerment, and leaving the scene of a crash.
How Are Civil and Criminal DUI Cases Different?
When drivers commit a DUI offense, they may face criminal and civil penalties. In a criminal DUI case, the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant of a DUI offense. This standard means that the jury must be nearly certain that the defendant committed the crime. If convicted, the defendant can face jail time or significant fines. However, these penalties often fail to adequately compensate DUI accident victims for their harm, both physical and emotional. In that case, victims can bring a negligence lawsuit against the responsible driver to seek monetary damages for their injuries. Compared to criminal cases, civil cases carry a much lower burden of proof. To hold the defendant liable for damages, the judge or jury only needs to find it more likely than not that the defendant was responsible for the plaintiff’s harm. This standard is called the preponderance of the evidence.