Burnouts on Private Property

[Carby]

Originally Posted by protd

i have been booked for DD in private property, i got a solicitor because i beleived i was in the right the solicitor basicly laughed at me.. yes you vvan and will get done for DD on private property as i said been there done that...

QLD law anyway...

Are you serious - that would mean every Farmer who has a son and teaches him to drive on the property could be charged with underage driving?

Surely this is Bullshi*t - did you also get charged for using foul language in your own house?

[Carby]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

you can and should be done for drink driving any where, anyone who gets behind the wheel when drinking is an idiot and it's even worse when doing something like a burnout where loss of control is a possibility killing bystanders

Now I know how we became the Nanny State.........lets legislate for everything including taking away responsibility from the individual.

[ayeyew]

Originally Posted by andrewr

How does it go if the cars not registered? I'm not encouraging DD, but I can't see how on your own property with an unlicenced car (or bike or quad) you can be charged.. Meh.

A car only has to be registered if you intend on using it on public roads.

Using an unregistered car on private property is fine.

You wouldnt really goto the rta to get rego for your 1980 paddy basher would you?

Originally Posted by Plugg3r

The thing I want to know is if a kid is driving a car on a private bit of property has no license and hasnt been drinking is this against the law?

Offences relating to being unlicenced are all to do with driving a motor vehicle on public roads, not private property.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by dave289

If your on your own property you should be able to do what you want when you want this is why you buy your own land.The police should not be on your property without a search warrant.My cousins used to drive a ute over ten kms on their property to get to the main road to catch the school bus every morning when they were only 12 years old.They were not licensed and were not booked because they were driving on their own property not on public roads, so I guess that means the rules that apply to the road do not apply to private property so you should be able to have a few beers and do burnouts to your hearts desire.The only thing they should be able to get you on is noise complaints from anybody who has complained about it otherwise get off my property and mind your own buisiness I say.

fine logic by your standards i hate my ex wife so i invite her to my place get drunk and run her over, I'm on my own property after all. drink driving is ok on your own property till you kill someone lose control and this could happen. If you drink you should never drive and if you do you should be penalised, if someone was on any other drug and doing this you would all be ranting but because you all seem to love this legal drug you defend it despite the dangers of being in control of a car when drugged to the eyeballs

Originally Posted by Carby

Now I know how we became the Nanny State.........lets legislate for everything including taking away responsibility from the individual.

it came about because tools like you insist it's ok to do things that put others at risk

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

fine logic by your standards i hate my ex wife so i invite her to my place get drunk and run her over, I'm on my own property after all. drink driving is ok on your own property till you kill someone lose control and this could happen. If you drink you should never drive and if you do you should be penalised, if someone was on any other drug and doing this you would all be ranting but because you all seem to love this legal drug you defend it despite the dangers of being in control of a car when drugged to the eyeballs
it came about because tools like you insist it's ok to do things that put others at risk

Not quite right with your logic. DD is a victimless crime (until you injure someone, then there is a victim). Your example of causing injury or death to your ex is an example of a victim being involved.
I do not condone DD on public streets, however i was unaware of the law regarding DD on private property. I do not agree with it, but the law sucks sometimes. Would i comply with the law now knowing it, probably not. I have 27 acres and will teach the kids how to drive in the paddocks soon. I have been known to get on the motorbike and have fun after having a skin full.

[FGII-XR6]

so DD on a public road is a victimless crime too till you kill or injure someone the idea of DD laws is protecting the inocent and you can still kill or injure someone on private property

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Not quite right with your logic. DD is a victimless crime (until you injure someone, then there is a victim). Your example of causing injury or death to your ex is an example of a victim being involved.
I do not condone DD on public streets, however i was unaware of the law regarding DD on private property. I do not agree with it, but the law sucks sometimes. Would i comply with the law now knowing it, probably not. I have 27 acres and will teach the kids how to drive in the paddocks soon. I have been known to get on the motorbike and have fun after having a skin full.

[Flaming Mo]

Some are placing DUI in the same category as other traffic related matters. I have been out of the game for a while, but will attempt to clarify for any that are interested.

From recollection, basically nearly all traffic related offences (unlicenced, careless, speed etc) require the offence to take place on a public road / public place. There are two exceptions to this which are DUI related offences and Dangerous Driving. There is no legal requirement for police to prove these two were committed on a public road / place, only that they occurred within the State of Queensland or state relevent to the offence / legislation.

So yes, a farmer's son can quite legally drive his old man's ute in his paddock without repercussions. BUT - If he does it full of booze or in a dangerous manner with half a dozen mates in the back tray, he can be charged. It should be noted that Dangerous Driving must be done in a manner dangerous to the public. The public includes your own passengers. It does not mean it needs to be committed in a public place.

As for the scenario given in the original post, the offender could have been charged under DUI legislation, but perhaps not with any other traffic related matters, however could have been subject to noise abatement / EPA legislation. The noise of motor vehicles (elsewhere than on a road) is usually covered in these noise statutes.

As for police power to enter property if a noise complaint had been received, the old Noise Abatement Act (or new Act) would give police power to enter the subject property (using force if necessary) to determine whether any offences had been committed / obtain details of occupier / give noise direction etc etc, so as per the norm, the drunken yobs giving bush lawyer advice over their mates shoulder were incorrect when advising that police have no right to be there.

As I've said, I've been out of the game for a little while, but I'm reasonably confident that my memory has served me in this instance. I hope I haven't added to the confusion.

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by JPDyno

In the letter sections, both times they published articles about it there were 3 or more published letters the next month from people abusing them over it. condoning 'hooning' behaivour and such. Publishing that many letters led me to believe there were alot more still in the mailbag.

But whatever man, I didnt say i had the hairy details, i just call it as i see it. No need to get in a huff about it.

I couple letters is hardly a reaming

There's no difference between us covering a private shed party or a open event like Powercruise.

Sure the private party was more intense the actions of the drivers were the same as the actions you'll see at any major event.

It should be noted that the cops have tried to shut down several shed party style events while we've been there and they've been turned away at the gates.

Originally Posted by Flaming Mo

Some are placing DUI in the same category as other traffic related matters. I have been out of the game for a while, but will attempt to clarify for any that are interested.

From recollection, basically nearly all traffic related offences (unlicenced, careless, speed etc) require the offence to take place on a public road / public place. There are two exceptions to this which are DUI related offences and Dangerous Driving. There is no legal requirement for police to prove these two were committed on a public road / place, only that they occurred within the State of Queensland or state relevent to the offence / legislation.

So yes, a farmer's son can quite legally drive his old man's ute in his paddock without repercussions. BUT - If he does it full of booze or in a dangerous manner with half a dozen mates in the back tray, he can be charged. It should be noted that Dangerous Driving must be done in a manner dangerous to the public. The public includes your own passengers. It does not mean it needs to be committed in a public place.

As for the scenario given in the original post, the offender could have been charged under DUI legislation, but perhaps not with any other traffic related matters, however could have been subject to noise abatement / EPA legislation. The noise of motor vehicles (elsewhere than on a road) is usually covered in these noise statutes.

As for police power to enter property if a noise complaint had been received, the old Noise Abatement Act (or new Act) would give police power to enter the subject property (using force if necessary) to determine whether any offences had been committed / obtain details of occupier / give noise direction etc etc, so as per the norm, the drunken yobs giving bush lawyer advice over their mates shoulder were incorrect when advising that police have no right to be there.

As I've said, I've been out of the game for a little while, but I'm reasonably confident that my memory has served me in this instance. I hope I haven't added to the confusion.

Very good post and spot on.

But I think it's a bigger crime to spend any time on a farm and NOT drive around with a bunch of guys in the tray holding on for their dear life.

[scoupedy]

Private property as far as I know the cops can't touch you (as far as driving on private property) unless they have a warrant...unless its about the noise issue which at 10pm it would be.
Road rules do not apply on private property, they will try to breath test you if they think/know you have been driving on public roads before,
If they try to breath test you on private property refuse and take it to court, unless they get a warrant (unlikely).
The cops will tell you all sorts of rubbish to get a conviction, I was told once if I don't tell them everything (about some friends)that i would be done for with holding evidence, i laughed so hard at the cop that they admitted it was BS.
If a crime has been committed- say you did a burn out on the road and then drove into you carport then the police are allowed to enter the premises and arrest/interview the offender.
The police like to BS poeple because it makes there job easier (who wouldn't)

[LOCO XP]

Thanks Flaming Mo its nice to see that somebody might be able to save this thread from the scrapper. I think your post makes more sense than any others and if anything, this thread might help to clear any ambiguities and misconceptions about the issue and perhaps bring some sense to those that misunderstand their rights. I certainly have learnt something, and in the litigious society we live in, the adage "Boys will be boys" virtually is extinct. Yes it sucks that our rights to be idiots has been restrained significantly, but with everybody, including friends and family, seemingly trigger happy to take legal action these days, perhaps it's not the worst thing that can happen. To injure somebody, or worse, for a split second of stupidity, and have that on your conscience, not mentioning losing everything you value, maybe puts things into perspective. Geez, I remember not being able to ride my minibike on my step dad's farm as he was convinced that if i crashed my dad would sue and he'd lose the farm. Paranoid and over the top, yes. But also a reality these days. I can go one better though. I took up BMX when I couldnt ride dirt bikes, and once the jumps got serious, my friends weren't allowed to ride them for the same reason. Teenage life sucked.

[FGII-XR6]

what a stupid post it had already been posted here by a cop (redrum) that there are legal grounds for a DD charge on private property so you are telling members to openly break the law by refusing a breath test. doing so will see you charged with refuse breath test which carries the same penalty as high range DD . there is always a rebelious fool in every thread and you get the award this is dangerous advice someone will end up being prosecuted for refuse breath test and your stupid advice will be responsible. who knows they may have grounds to sue you for this dodgy advice that would be an interesting case and you would deserve it

Originally Posted by scoupedy

Private property as far as I know the cops can't touch you (as far as driving on private property) unless they have a warrant...unless its about the noise issue which at 10pm it would be.
Road rules do not apply on private property, they will try to breath test you if they think/know you have been driving on public roads before,
If they try to breath test you on private property refuse and take it to court, unless they get a warrant (unlikely).
The cops will tell you all sorts of rubbish to get a conviction, I was told once if I don't tell them everything (about some friends)that i would be done for with holding evidence, i laughed so hard at the cop that they admitted it was BS.
If a crime has been committed- say you did a burn out on the road and then drove into you carport then the police are allowed to enter the premises and arrest/interview the offender.
The police like to BS poeple because it makes there job easier (who wouldn't)

[dave289]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

fine logic by your standards i hate my ex wife so i invite her to my place get drunk and run her over, I'm on my own property after all. drink driving is ok on your own property till you kill someone lose control and this could happen. If you drink you should never drive and if you do you should be penalised, if someone was on any other drug and doing this you would all be ranting but because you all seem to love this legal drug you defend it despite the dangers of being in control of a car when drugged to the eyeballs
it came about because tools like you insist it's ok to do things that put others at risk

yes sargeant wigam"blah blah blah blah blah,blah blah blah,blah blah.

To have a few beers as I mentioned in my post is not drugged to the eyeballs as you put it.Doing burnout requires little or no speed at all.People ride dirt bikes on their own property on their home built tracks,far more dangerous than having a few beers and spinning the tyres up.If you hate your ex-wife so much I am sure their are far better ways to do her in ,you have obviuosly thought about this for some time,there might be some forums on this somewhere,I'm sure your not the only one to have thought this infact I would say there would be hundreds around the world,hundered of thousands that is.And I was not defending any legal drug.To be honest I think alcohol causes a lot more problems than some of the illegal drugs,but I dont mind a few beers now and then.

[paule11]

flaming mo is spot on with his post

[FGII-XR6]

doing burnouts has the potential to cause a serious accident . someone drunk at full throtle and being intoxicated their foot slips of the brake ( if doing a line locker) and we have a launch into a group of people to control a burnout takes skill and that is impaired by alcohol ( please tell me more about forums for getting rid of ex wives )

Originally Posted by dave289

yes sargeant wigam"blah blah blah blah blah,blah blah blah,blah blah.

To have a few beers as I mentioned in my post is not drugged to the eyeballs as you put it.Doing burnout requires little or no speed at all.People ride dirt bikes on their own property on their home built tracks,far more dangerous than having a few beers and spinning the tyres up.If you hate your ex-wife so much I am sure their are far better ways to do her in ,you have obviuosly thought about this for some time,there might be some forums on this somewhere,I'm sure your not the only one to have thought this infact I would say there would be hundreds around the world,hundered of thousands that is.And I was not defending any legal drug.To be honest I think alcohol causes a lot more problems than some of the illegal drugs,but I dont mind a few beers now and then.

[wingTS]

For anyone in SA, here is what you are up against. Section (2) is interesting for this thread...

44B—Misuse of motor vehicle

(1) For the purposes of this section, a person misuses a motor vehicle if the person—
(a) drives a motor vehicle, in a public place, in a race between vehicles, a vehicle speed trial, a vehicle pursuit or any competitive trial to test drivers' skills or vehicles; or
(b) operates a motor vehicle in a public place so as to produce sustained wheel spin; or
(c) drives a motor vehicle in a public place so as to cause engine or tyre noise, or both, that is likely to disturb persons residing or working in the vicinity; or
(d) drives a motor vehicle onto an area of park or garden (whether public or private) or a road related area so as to break up the ground surface or cause other damage.
(2) However, conduct of a type described in subsection (1) does not constitute misuse of a motor vehicle if it occurs in a place with the consent of the owner or occupier of the place or the person who has the care, control and management of the place.
(3) A person who misuses a motor vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(4) A person who promotes or organises an event involving the misuse of a motor vehicle, knowing that it will involve the misuse of a motor vehicle, is guilty of an offence.

[magoo66]

Originally Posted by Bluepower

your just on home turf, not in international waters......

What if you dig a moat and declare yourself a country?

[ea90gl]

I would never admit to anything and really at the end of the day how can you be done for anything if the cop himself did not witness it/hear it? Imagine how well that would stand up in court, no actual proof or anything. If they catch you red handed then fair enough cop it sweet, but if they arrive after you have done the deed I think your safe. when one of my cars was unregistered getting ready for a new paint job I took it up the street and back and gave it a small squirt (not even 2 mins of driving), some fairy rang the cops and one arrives 15 minutes later. the car is stationary up the driveway doing nothing. He asks if I've driven it up the street, I reply no. He goes up and feels the bonnet is a tad warm and asks why is that, I simply reply I started it up to charge the battery. He proceeds to ramble some crap about being careful and IF I was doing anything its not a good idea. I reply yeah no worries, he heads off and Im free. No proof = no case, simple.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by magoo66

What if you dig a moat and declare yourself a country?

You'd be called Tasmania II.

Glad to read so many have totally forgotten their inherited rights. Even police with warrants, and who enter on that basis, 'can' face trouble, but that typically means a high court visit.

Another topic for another day.

[FPV GT40]

Originally Posted by Flaming Mo

Some are placing DUI in the same category as other traffic related matters. I have been out of the game for a while, but will attempt to clarify for any that are interested.

From recollection, basically nearly all traffic related offences (unlicenced, careless, speed etc) require the offence to take place on a public road / public place. There are two exceptions to this which are DUI related offences and Dangerous Driving. There is no legal requirement for police to prove these two were committed on a public road / place, only that they occurred within the State of Queensland or state relevent to the offence / legislation.

So yes, a farmer's son can quite legally drive his old man's ute in his paddock without repercussions. BUT - If he does it full of booze or in a dangerous manner with half a dozen mates in the back tray, he can be charged. It should be noted that Dangerous Driving must be done in a manner dangerous to the public. The public includes your own passengers. It does not mean it needs to be committed in a public place.

As for the scenario given in the original post, the offender could have been charged under DUI legislation, but perhaps not with any other traffic related matters, however could have been subject to noise abatement / EPA legislation. The noise of motor vehicles (elsewhere than on a road) is usually covered in these noise statutes.

As for police power to enter property if a noise complaint had been received, the old Noise Abatement Act (or new Act) would give police power to enter the subject property (using force if necessary) to determine whether any offences had been committed / obtain details of occupier / give noise direction etc etc, so as per the norm, the drunken yobs giving bush lawyer advice over their mates shoulder were incorrect when advising that police have no right to be there.

As I've said, I've been out of the game for a little while, but I'm reasonably confident that my memory has served me in this instance. I hope I haven't added to the confusion.

This is the only fully correct post here all others have many mistakes and fallacies, it must also be said that police can not breath test you on your private property. Police can however charge you with DUI (driving under the influence) based on observations and your state of sobriety, they must conduct an assessment of sobriety to do so, as DUI has nothing to do with breath testing. DUI is a back up charge if breath testing equipment is unavailable, and also covers driving under the influence of illegal and legal drugs, as long as they affect the way you drive a vehicle and control your vehicle on a public road or private property.

The charge of PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol), is where the breath test equipment comes in, you can be random breath tested at any time while on a public road or road related area. if you go over .00, .02 or .05, depending on your limit, you will then be arrested and charged with PCA (drink driving).

And yes police can (and are obliged in alot of cases) enter your property (without warrant), by force if necessary, if they believe a crime has been committed, to investigate a crime or to stop or investigate a breach of the peace. To interfere with police doing their duty, and not follow reasonable directions given by police is an offence in itself which you can be arrested and charged for.

They can enter your property with a warrant by any means necessary to do so.

Being on private property does not stop you being criminally liable for your actions, ie if you run over one of your mates, or they fall out of the ute you are driving and they die or get seriously hurt you are criminally reponsible for all your actions or inactions

[GSH]

aawww leave the old car alone it cant even spin the tires ;)

Originally Posted by LOCO XP

Earmarked with its 2nd warning....hardly gets out enough as it is the poor old thing

[bcr2734]

Originally Posted by Bluepower

You can be booked for everything mentioned in this thread.

careless, reckless, dangerous, .05......

your just on home turf, not in international waters......

See - you get drunk, have your mates around, silly stuff happens, someone gets drunk and makes a mistake, someone dies.....trust me, the cops will find out who is criminally responsible.

If the offence is classified as indictable, its even worse. If people are going to get drunk and play with cars its my hope that the police DO get involved............

Cant turn back time and unwind a horrible mistake.........prevention is best cure.

glad you don't live in the country and attend bns balls. just remember alchol doesn't kill people. people kill people.

[dave289]

Originally Posted by Bluepower

You can be booked for everything mentioned in this thread.

careless, reckless, dangerous, .05......

your just on home turf, not in international waters......

See - you get drunk, have your mates around, silly stuff happens, someone gets drunk and makes a mistake, someone dies.....trust me, the cops will find out who is criminally responsible.

If the offence is classified as indictable, its even worse. If people are going to get drunk and play with cars its my hope that the police DO get involved............

Cant turn back time and unwind a horrible mistake.........prevention is best cure.

Mistakes also happen when people are not drunk.with your thinking we may as well all stay inside,something bad might happen if we go outside.and the cops dont always find out who is criminally responsible trust me.NEVER TRUST SOMEBODY WHO SAYS "TRUST ME".Are you eighty years old?

[XRQTOR]

Originally Posted by bcr2734

glad you don't live in the country and attend bns balls. just remember alchol doesn't kill people. people kill people.

A guy at work whos father was a copper had someone fall out of his ute at a BNS ball, he was doing dounuts in the dirt and they were all blind & the bloke who fell out died and ole mate was charged.

Now im of the opinion that if im stupid enough to get in the back then im also stupid enough not to blame the drive if i get hurt.....

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by dave289

Mistakes also happen when people are not drunk.with your thinking we may as well all stay inside,something bad might happen if we go outside.and the cops dont always find out who is criminally responsible trust me.NEVER TRUST SOMEBODY WHO SAYS "TRUST ME".Are you eighty years old?

This is going around in circles.

Do a search on Bluepower and see how many 8 year olds run 10 second passes in XR8's they built them self.

You will find most serious racers have nothing to prove to drunk mates at parties.

[FPV GT40]

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

A guy at work whos father was a copper had someone fall out of his ute at a BNS ball, he was doing dounuts in the dirt and they were all blind & the bloke who fell out died and ole mate was charged.

Now im of the opinion that if im stupid enough to get in the back then im also stupid enough not to blame the drive if i get hurt.....

It is not a question who you blame, it is a question who is responsible, the driver of a vehicle is responsible for his actions, weather drunk or not, if passengers do not wear seat belts the driver gets fined, if you cause injury to someone you are responsible as you have control of the vehicle no one else.

If your argument was correct you would blame the person getting shot for standing in front of the gun....The driver of the vehicle is responsible for all actions associated with his driving, and you are responsible for all acts (what you did) and also all omissions (what you did not do but should have done). People killed or seriously injured can often mean jail time for the driver.

The person in the back has no control over the vehicle the driver does.

Thats why traffic offences are strict liability, meaning police do not have to prove that you meant to do whatever happened they just have to show that it happened...while with most other offences (non traffic) police must show that you had the intend to do the act that you did.

So "I did not realise the speed limit was 60 officer". or "sorry i did not know that U turns at traffic lights were illegal" does not wash, as a holder of a licence and the driver of a motor vehicle it is your responsibility to know the law associated with what you are driving.

[XRQTOR]

Originally Posted by FPV GT40

It is not a question who you blame, it is a question who is responsible, the driver of a vehicle is responsible for his actions, weather drunk or not, if passengers do not wear seat belts the driver gets fined, if you cause injury to someone you are responsible as you have control of the vehicle no one else.

If your argument was correct you would blame the person getting shot for standing in front of the gun....The driver of the vehicle is responsible for all actions associated with his driving, and you are responsible for all acts (what you did) and also all omissions (what you did not do but should have done). People killed or seriously injured can often mean jail time for the driver.

The person in the back has no control over the vehicle the driver does.

Thats why traffic offences are strict liability, meaning police do not have to prove that you meant to do whatever happened they just have to show that it happened...while with most other offences (non traffic) police must show that you had the intend to do the act that you did.

So "I did not realise the speed limit was 60 officer". or "sorry i did not know that U turns at traffic lights were illegal" does not wash, as a holder of a licence and the driver of a motor vehicle it is your responsibility to know the law associated with what you are driving.

If your stupid enough to jump in the back of a ute when YOU KNOW the driver is drunk and has the intention of doing circle work you cant pass blame.


People need to stand up and take responseability for their actions not try and pass the blame as today's socity is so good at doing.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by FPV GT40

It is not a question who you blame, it is a question who is responsible, the driver of a vehicle is responsible for his actions, weather drunk or not, if passengers do not wear seat belts the driver gets fined, if you cause injury to someone you are responsible as you have control of the vehicle no one else.

If your argument was correct you would blame the person getting shot for standing in front of the gun....The driver of the vehicle is responsible for all actions associated with his driving, and you are responsible for all acts (what you did) and also all omissions (what you did not do but should have done). People killed or seriously injured can often mean jail time for the driver.

The person in the back has no control over the vehicle the driver does.

Thats why traffic offences are strict liability, meaning police do not have to prove that you meant to do whatever happened they just have to show that it happened...while with most other offences (non traffic) police must show that you had the intend to do the act that you did.

So "I did not realise the speed limit was 60 officer". or "sorry i did not know that U turns at traffic lights were illegal" does not wash, as a holder of a licence and the driver of a motor vehicle it is your responsibility to know the law associated with what you are driving.

The person driving the vehicle is ultimately responsible.. watch 60 mins tonight to see that first hand....

[FPV GT40]

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

If your stupid enough to jump in the back of a ute when YOU KNOW the driver is drunk and has the intention of doing circle work you cant pass blame.


People need to stand up and take responseability for their actions not try and pass the blame as today's socity is so good at doing.

You are the one trying to pass the blame....the driver is responsible no good trying to pass the blame onto anyone else that has no control over what is happening to him. Just because someone gets into the back of a ute does not mean they want to be thrown out of it by the driver, the person will be able to survive quite well sitting in the back of a ute until the driver controlling the vehicle does his thing causing injury or death to another person...very simple really no one gets killed just sitting in the back, it requires someone else to do something, and that person is responsible as his actions have caused the injury.

[XRQTOR]

Originally Posted by FPV GT40

You are the one trying to pass the blame....the driver is responsible no good trying to pass the blame onto anyone else that has no control over what is happening to him. Just because someone gets into the back of a ute does not mean they want to be thrown out of it by the driver, the person will be able to survive quite well sitting in the back of a ute until the driver controlling the vehicle does his thing causing injury or death to another person...very simple really no one gets killed just sitting in the back, it requires someone else to do something, and that person is responsible as his actions have caused the injury.

If one of your mates (While drunk) says to you jump in the back while i do burnouts, would you do it or not. I doubt youd be that stupid, if you did get in the it's your own fault.

Granted the driver was doing circle work which isn't the brightest thing to do while drunk, but the idiot shouldnt have jumped in the back either so he is just as much at fault as the driver. It doesnt even matter if they were drunk or not, if you know what they were about to do and still jumped in it's your own fault.

Whne were we kids we used to chase each other through the bush with sling shots and shoot marbles at each other, one kid did eventually loose an eye but it was no more the kid who shot its fault than the idiot playin with us.