 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappara v. Schibley5/12/1999
[Cite as Cappara v. Schibley (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Torts - Negligence - Motor vehicles - Evidence of a subsequent driving record is not admissible to establish the state of mind of a driver at the time of an earlier accident.
Evidence of a subsequent driving record is not admissible to establish the state of mind of a driver at the time of an accident.
Submitted February 10, 1999
Appellant, James V. Cappara, was injured in an automobile accident on October 13, 1992, when a vehicle, owned by appellee Schibley Chemical Company and operated by appellee Loren Schibley, turned into the path of and struck Cappara's vehicle at an intersection. Cappara filed a complaint against Schibley for negligence and against Schibley Chemical for negligent entrustment of the company-owned vehicle. Because he believed that Schibley was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, Cappara sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Schibley admitted negligence but denied that he showed a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons.
During a deposition taken for use at trial, Schibley testified that he had eaten dinner at a restaurant immediately prior to the accident but that he was not drunk that night. He also testified that he left the scene without stopping because he did not see the other driver who had been involved and thought he had left the scene also. Schibley testified that he drove home that night but did not contact the police until the following morning. Consequently, Schibley did not undergo any testing to determine alcohol impairment.
Clifford Roach, a security guard who was working a short distance away, was standing in a parking lot when he heard the crash. Roach testified that he looked toward the intersection and saw one of the vehicles involved back up and drive away. The vehicle pulled into the entrance of the parking lot and stopped. Roach said that he observed the driver exit the vehicle, turn, and look in the direction of the intersection where the accident had occurred. From his position inside the security gate, Roach said that he was able to see only the driver's head and shoulders. He watched the driver for approximately one to one and a half minutes. Roach testified that the driver of the vehicle appeared intoxicated based on the way he was standing and moving out of and into the vehicle.
Before trial, defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Schibley's prior driving under the influence (DUI) convictions as character evidence that would be unduly prejudicial. Furthermore, defendants claimed that the prior convictions were not relevant toward the negligent-entrustment claim because there was no evidence that the accident was proximately caused by Schibley's alleged intoxication. Cappara opposed the motion in limine and also filed a memorandum arguing the admissibility of Schibley's subsequent instances of driving while intoxicated to show his reckless disregard and conscious indifference for the consequences of his drunken driving and Schibley Chemical's continuing to entrust a company-owned vehicle to Schibley, despite his repeated arrests and convictions.
The trial court ruled that Cappara could not introduce evidence of defendant's subsequent DUI convictions to establish the claim of negligent entrustment, but the convictions would be allowed on the issue of punitive damages, so long as Cappara first introduced evidence that Schibley had left the scene of the accident.
Counsel for Cappara questioned Schibley about his driving record both prior and subsequent to the 1992 accident. Schibley admitted that he had been arrested
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|