MovieChat Forums > Out of the Furnace (2013) Discussion > Nonsense: Russell would not have went to...

Nonsense: Russell would not have went to prison over the car wreck

posted 9 years ago by BeanieBabyProfits
28 replies | jump to latest

The car accident and ensuing prison time make zero sense.

Regardless of being drunk or distracted by the radio Russell was not negligent for accident. The other vehicle backed out from a driveway or another street into Russell's lane causing the wreck. Being drunk when getting into a car accident does not determine who is responsible for a collision.

At the very least he may be held SLIGHTLY responsible, a small percentage if it's concluded that because he was intoxicated he had a slower response time and could have possibly decreased the severity of damage by hitting the breaks or avoiding the accident altogether. But this idea that he would be held negligent to the point of being sent to prison is nonsense. Again DUI does not determine responsibility. The other vehicle was clearly responsible.

Not sure how anyone could disagree if you saw the scene?

You're wearing my breast, little Jack is drinking, Moses is sodomizing Jinx. What is going on here?

[–] cheezbaalz 9 years ago

He was intoxicated and was the one who slammed into the car pulling out, killing at least one passenger with no witnesses.
That is what they can be sure of.
I've heard of people getting jailtime for less than that so I did not find it unbelievable.

[–] shadowmas3 9 years ago

Your so wrong it's not even funny. 1st if he wasn't breaking the law by driving while intoxicated the accident would of never happened. 2nd anything that happens while your breaking the law becomes your fault and anyone with you Is Guilty by association. 3 you don't know if he was on probation or if he had a record. Also manslaught voluntarily or not is still murder and punishable by up to 10 years in prison unless your name is Bruce Jenner then it's cool apparently.

[–] Little_Tyke 8 years ago

I was wondering exactly the same, thinking, well, it's America, so they do things differently over there. Like you said, the back of the car he hit came out of nowhere. I was surprised to see him in the next scene in jail. If this was in the UK I don't think he would have got prison time, or even if he did it would only be for a year, with remission for good behaviour.

[–] JimR0719 (70) 5 years ago

I was confused by this. But perhaps he was already on parole for something else (they didn't seem to cover his past history). So, I'm guessing he could have broken parole by drinking and driving. He's probably incarcerated for that alone, fatal car accident notwithstanding.

[–] Druff (1447) 4 years ago

Is backing out of a driveway illegal? No. (At least, not where I live.) Is driving while having a .08 blood alcohol level illegal? Yes.

Even with no alcohol in his system, the guy got into an easily avoidable accident which resulted in the death of a child. Do all of the know-it-all hand waving bullshit you want, any reasonable person should be able to accept this a simple and realistic plot point.

[–] Costumer (1785) 4 years ago

I haven't seen the film. But as to the question "Is backing out of a driveway illegal" the answer is it depends. If the driver backs out without yielding the right of way to traffic on the road, it is illegal; or at least leads to responsibility.

An example as an analogy (which is, of course, not perfect.) I was involved in an accident in 1982 or 1983. I was driving down the road at about 25 MPH (the posted limit.) and completely sober. Another driver pulled out of a parallel parking spot about 20 feet in front of me. Though I did swerve to avoid (luckily I knew no one was behind me nor in the opposing lane of traffic as it was a two lane road) I clipped her front bumper.

We called an police officer. (we had to find a building with a phone since this was before the days when cell phones were common, or even rare.) The officer took our statements. He did not separate us.

He wrote the other driver a ticket for reckless driving. The other driver protested and said I should get a ticket for hitting the driver's car. The officer informed the other driver that I was not responsible for the accident. They were the proximate cause for pulling out a parking space without checking traffic.

I had the right of way. I wasn't required to yield it to the other driver.

[–] Druff (1447) 4 years ago

It's illegal to yield to the right of way, period. If you fail to yield, it doesn't matter that at the time you happened to be backing out, pulling out, changing lanes, rounding a corner, whatever. If the car was pulling out going forward instead of backing out, it would change nothing from a legal standpoint.

Laws vary from place to place, but where I live (Los Angeles) it is absolutely not illegal to back out of a driveway or parking spot, period, full stop. Any other caveats and qualifiers you want to put on top it are a whole 'nother matter.

[–] Costumer (1785) 4 years ago

Its not illegal where I live either, in theory. But if I back out of my drive and hit a car on the street I will get the ticket. Depending on the circumstances I will get points taken of my license. So yes, it depends. If you mean is there a law on the book that specifically outlaws backing out of a drive, no. But the law does not have to describe the specific action to make reckless or careless driving illegal.

In this instance, based on the description above, both drivers might have received tickets. Russell, the one who was intoxicated might also go to jail depending on his record. Insurance companies would likely parse percentages of liability. But the person who backed out into the street into the path of a moving vehicle is largely responsible for any injuries or deaths that occur.

If the driver backing out was waiting for traffic to clear and Russell runs over the curb and strikes the car, then Russell is completely responsible since the guy backing out is doing what he wants.

You can't say something is always legal, full stop. Many things depend on circumstances.

[–] Druff (1447) 4 years ago

"You can't say something is always legal, full stop."

That wasn't my point. My point was that 'failure to yield' in and of itself is what's illegal in your example. There's no need to add specifics beyond that in terms of which direction the driver happened to be going at the time they failed to yield.

Yes, it's illegal to fail to yield to right of way traffic while backing out. It's illegal to fail to yield while pulling out forwards. It's illegal to fail to yield while driving upside down. It's illegal to yield while smoking crack. Etc. etc. etc. etc.

[–] Costumer (1785) 4 years ago

When I am making an example I describe all circumstances I can for two reasons.

1. To make clear all parameters so my point is clear.

2. So someone evaluating my example may see any flaw in my reasoning. As I have in the past, if an error is pointed out I will re-evaluate my position and, if I deem the logic sufficient, will modify or withdraw my point.

My issue with your point was that it was not illegal to back out of a driveway period. My point that it is illegal if there is a failure to yield the right of way or the action is negligent or reckless. The technical infraction is, of course, the failure to yield, the negligence, or the recklessness. But those factors make that particular instance of backing out illegal. Thus the statement "it is not illegal to back out of a driveway, period", is not correct.

[–] noveltylibrary65 (200) 4 years ago

That was my first thought after the wreck: Oh well it was the other driver's fault..