Drunk Driving Instructor in Palma Stops Tests – Who Pays for the Damage?

Drunk driving instructor in Palma stops tests – Candidates feel abandoned

It's one of those clear mornings in Palma: the sun is still low, buses rumble by, seagulls screech above the rooftops. Suddenly there was unrest on an exam site. A practical driving test was stopped in the middle of the road after the Guardia Civil found alcohol on the accompanying driving instructor during a check. Engines off, lights on, faces frozen in surprise – three candidates stood there, ready for their big moment, and suddenly it was all over. The incident was reported in Driving test on the Arenal motorway halted: instructor tested positive for alcohol.

The central question: Who is liable for the damage?

The young people are not only disappointed, they are also angry: vacation taken, travel, exam fees. "We drove here especially early, now we're left with the costs and nobody takes responsibility," says one candidate who was on site. The Guardia Civil confirmed the incident: a breathalyzer test of the driving instructor was positive, the vehicle was temporarily impounded, the test annulled. Legally, however, the situation is less clear. Who pays refunds or replacement appointments — the instructor personally, the driving school, the testing authority? For official regulations candidates may consult the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT) official site.

What is often missing from the public debate is the legal grey area between individual misconduct and institutional responsibility. An instructor who accompanies an exam while intoxicated endangers not only the candidates but also trust in the system. The question of liability and prevention thus becomes central: are sporadic checks enough, or are mandatory pre-checks required?

Systemic weaknesses crying out for solutions

The problem is more than a one-off case. Candidates report long waiting lists and palpable pressure: appointments are scarce, nerves are frayed. Many driving schools work with tight schedules, instructors juggle several tests a day. In this environment, individual absences can quickly cause significant damage to customers. These structural conditions are often overlooked when only the individual's misconduct is condemned. Other local incidents have raised concerns, for example Drunk driving in Palma – 61-year-old stopped after wrong-way drive.

Concrete approaches could improve the situation: mandatory breathalyzer tests for accompanying instructors before an exam begins, clearly regulated on-site replacement solutions (e.g., immediate provision of a substitute driver by the driving school), transparent refund rules and a duty to report incidents. Continuous documentation of all tests and the use of digital protocols would also help clarify responsibilities more quickly, supported by procedures described on the Guardia Civil official website.

Another often underestimated point is the psychological burden on candidates: the mental damage after such a public embarrassment cannot be measured in euros and cents. Anyone who, after an abrupt cancellation, has to face the examiner — sorry, the driving instructor — again needs time and sometimes support to avoid becoming unsettled.

What those affected can do now

The three candidates have officially filed a complaint with the competent traffic authority. That is the right first step. In parallel, those affected should collect receipts, document correspondence with the driving school and, if necessary, set a deadline for reimbursement. If the driving school does not cooperate, legal action remains an option — even if it takes time and nerves. Similar complaints followed other incidents such as Palma: Accident involving a drunk female driver — despite a license previously revoked.

At the political level, measures are now required: stricter checks, clear liability regulations and mandatory safety checks before tests begin. A breathalyzer test for instructors before each exam is neither technically nor organizationally utopian — but it would restore a lot of trust and send the signal that tests must be safe not only for candidates but for everyone involved.

An eyewitness at the test site described the scene as a mixture of disbelief and anger. Those who travel early in the morning do not want to become pawns of organizational shortcomings — and that is precisely what those affected now want to change.