 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartel v. State8/27/1985
familiar with the intersection in question and how traffic moved from St. Ignatius through that intersection to Highway 93 en route north to Ronan.
"7. On May 27, 1980, he put in an ordinary day's work until four p.m., at which time and before five p.m. he had two beers. Between eight and nine p.m., after eating his supper, he drank another can of beer. Between nine p.m. on the 27th and the time of the accident at one a.m. on the 28th he drank not less than nine and quite probably twelve to fifteen drinks containing undetermined amounts of scotch whiskey.
"8. At the time of the accident his blood stream was carrying between .103 and .213 percentage alcohol, which seriously impaired his sensory and mental functions, including sight, perception, reflexion, reaction and ratiocination."
Bartel challenges these three findings of fact.
In addition, the District Court found that the night of the accident was dark but clear, the roadway was dry and clear, and no other traffic was involved in the accident. The court found that the headlight on the motorcycle was functioning normally and that all traffic signs could be discerned clearly with the headlight. The court found that Bartel, at a speed of 25 to 30 m.p.h. and without braking or decelerating, passed across the road's yellow dividing line and the left lane, collided with the traffic separation island toward its north end, lost control of his motorcycle and landed with it in a ditch on the right side of the road. The court found that under the light and weather conditions existing at the time of the accident, an ordinarily observant motor vehicle operator traveling in Bartel's direction could have seen from a distance of not less than 350 feet the end of the traffic island which Bartel hit and could have seen other indications of the proper route through the intersection. The court found that if Bartel had been driving in a reasonably careful and prudent manner and not under the influence of alcohol, he could have easily avoided the collision with the traffic island and that Bartel was not in any way "trapped" by highway design, signing or maintenance.
Although the court found that the design, construction, signing and maintenance of the intersection was "demonstrably deficient in numerous respects and did not comport with national standards or even the State's own standards," these deficiencies were not found to be a cause of the accident. The court noted that no other accidents at this intersection had been reported since 1969, when the traffic island was installed.
The court concluded that Bartel was negligent in violating several traffic safety statutes, including driving while under the influence of alcohol. The court also concluded that Bartel was negligent in failing to see a hazard which a reasonably prudent person would see under the circumstances or, having seen it, ignoring it or failing to react to it in a reasonable and prudent manner. The court concluded that Bartel's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also concluded that any negligence of the State was not in any degree a proximate cause of the accident. Bartel appeals.
I
Did the district court err in admitting into evidence without adequate foundation the results of a blood-alcohol test?
Bartel contends that evidence of blood-alcohol test results was inadmissible because the State failed to establish the required foundation for its admission, as required by McAlpine v. Midland Electric Company (Mont. 1981), 634 P.2d 1166, 38 St.Rep. 1577. Bartel argues that although less stringent foundational safeguards are required for
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|