Ernest Marsh wrote:
In the simplified version, the DRUNK was responsible for the accident CAUSE, and the driver for the severity of the injuries. Ultimately, therefore, the driver would be expected to pay damages (assuming the drunk survived) in a civil case.
I know you're talking about a simplified version, and also that you don't necessarily recognise that the driver should be held to blame, But I'd just like to point out why the driver should not be held to blame purely because of his speed.
An any particular situation where a collision takes place, there is no connection between the speed the car was travelling at and the collision speed. You cannot deduce the one from the other without taking into account a myriad of other, mostly random, factors which are beyond the drivers control.
If the driver was doing 30mph he
might have had time to reduce his speed to 15mph before impact. If he was doing 40mph he also
might have seen the drunk a half a second earlier, and so
might have brought his speed down to 5mph before impact. If he was doing 20mph he also
might have been looking somewhere else and not seen the drunk at all, and so hit him at the full 20mph.