Unavoidable accidents. Mechanical failures. Distracted drivers. Every single day, collisions result in injury and death that have absolutely nothing to do with alcohol. While the evidence would logically support the conclusion that impaired drivers are at a higher rate of driving recklessly, a correlation is not the same as causation.  The crime of intoxication manslaughter occurs when a person is intoxicated and, by reason of that intoxication, causes the death of another by accident or mistake.

Much of the litigation and investigation surrounding intoxication manslaughter cases focuses upon causality. From the government’s perspective, there is an automatic presumption that if was a collision and alcohol was in any way involved, it must have been a contributing factor. The statistics accumulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) illustrate this presumption. NHTSA reports “alcohol related” accidents and “alcohol related” deaths. There is a fundamental distinction between “alcohol related” and “alcohol caused” that is often ignored. For example, if there was a collision and the sober driver kills an intoxicated pedestrian, it is an alcohol related death. If an intoxicated passenger is injured in a wreck with a sober driver behind the wheel, the statistic similarly shows an alcohol related injury. Why doesn’t NHTSA report on causality? Because it’s much, much harder to prove.

While there is little dispute that driving while impaired is reckless, preventable, and dangerous, does it therefore mean that an impaired driver is automatically at fault for any collision, regardless of the circumstances? If a person who has been drinking gets hit by a driver that wasn’t, how does alcohol factor into the other contributing factors of the accident?

Accident reconstruction is absolutely critical to understanding and defending cases where alcohol is alleged to be the cause of the accident or mistake.