DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Deen

9/16/2004

d the record indicates that Jenkins knew that there was a car in front of her on the road. Jenkins simply failed to appreciate that the car had come to a stop, assuming instead that the car had turned. Pretermitting whether Jenkins' assumption was the result of intoxication or mere inattentiveness, the fact remains that she collided with a car that she had previously seen on the road ahead of her. Under these circumstances, Jenkins' conduct in driving under the influence and in failing to exercise ordinary care while driving constitutes an intervening act that caused the injury. [FN13] Nevertheless, any intervening act that is a normal reaction to the conditions created by the defendant's prior negligence is deemed foreseeable by the defendant and does not break the chain of proximate causation. [FN14] Here, Deen essentially contends that it is normal for a driver to miss seeing both a car and train stopped in the road. Thus, according to Deen, such accident was foreseeable to CSX. We disagree. Given the presence of a stopped train and a stopped car, with its head lights and tail lights illuminated, Jenkins' act of driving into the car severed any legally sufficient causation between the alleged negligence of CSX and the collision. [FN15] Moreover, the number of DUI incidences on the road does not alter this result. Deen does not contend that CSX had knowledge of the number of DUI arrests on Albany Road. Thus, Deen essentially argues that railroad companies should investigate the number of DUI's near any given railroad crossing. We decline to impose such duty. It follows that this argument lacks merit. Case Number A04A1529 2. In light of our holding in Division 1, we do not reach Deen's appeal in Case Number A04A1529, which is rendered moot. [FN16] Judgment reversed in Case Number A04A1528.

Page 1 2 3 

Georgia DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.