Back in 1982 I was in a serious car crash ... the other driver (drunk) crossed over the line and was headed straight on - I swerved to the left and his pickup truck ran over the right side of the hood, crushed the roof on that side, and spun me around three times like a top.
When the sheriff deputy got there, the man could not even blubber out his own name due to his drunken state. His license had been suspended a year ago for the same kind of thing - he was driving without a license and, of course, had no insurance.
Since my car was totalled, I had nothing to drive and needed to get back and forth to work ... I attempted, as part of the settlement, to obtain his truck in payment for my loss, but was refused by the courts. It was explained that the man needed that truck to look for work ... what? I said in awe ... he doesn't have a license, and does not have insurance, but he is allowed to use the truck to look for work? What is wrong with this picture?
The courts said, and I quote them directly: the 'alleged' drunk was not allowed to drive any vehicle because of the suspended license ... but since he was unemployed at the time he was allowed by state law to keep the truck so that he could use it to find work. Wait ... he can't drive it, but is allowed to do so anyway because he is not employed? The attorney said, Yup ... that's the way it is.
I was out a car and got nothing for it ... stupid laws defend the criminal and offer nothing for the victim in lots of cases like that here.
Because of my quick thinking, I avoided the head on ... got a few scrapes and bruises, but otherwise able to return to work in a couple days.
Kh ♫