First of all, let it be known that I don't think that this guy is free and clear just because he was old. I remember when this happened, I wished that the mob that pulled him out of the car had killed him there and then.
That being said, I'm going to play devil's advocate...
I think that he should have never been granted a driver's license, or insured, for that matter. That, however, should have been the decision of the DMV, the insurance company or both. I think that the last person who will know of his incapability to drive safely was, in fact, the 89 year old driver himself. He had no perspective on the matter, and in spite of his clear lack of fitness as a driver, the authorities, who should be experts in the matter of evaluating drivers, failed to do their job. He had every right to apply for a license. They had every responsibility to reject him.
Originally posted by Mickey1992
If he were 18 or drunk we would not be having this conversation.
A drunk is not only aware of his impairment, is not only aware of his responsibility
for the impairment, but he should be aware of the illegality of what he is doing. The old man may not have known that he was impaired, was not responsible for it, and most likely had no idea of the illegality of his physical state. Not everyone is lucky enough to learn of his/her age-related problems in largely benign household accidents.
As for an 18 year-old... That's an odd one, but, most likely, this would involve some sort of very evident physical condition that would not have been overlooked by the DMV.
Again, I am not standing up for this guy. I'm only pointing out how un-straightforward this situation is.
