 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Van Allen1/19/2005
Sean Malloy Van Allen was convicted of causing injury while driving under the influence of alcohol. He seeks a reversal on the ground the prosecution did not provide expert testimony that his failure to have his passenger wear a seatbelt was the proximate cause of the passenger's injuries. As expert testimony was not required on this issue, we affirm the judgment.
Following an afternoon of drinking, Van Allen and his friend Chris Costello set off in Van Allen's pickup truck. Van Allen was behind the wheel and Costello was in the front passenger seat. Neither was wearing his seatbelt. However, that did not stop Van Allen from driving erratically. In fact, he had several near misses with other vehicles before fate finally caught up with him.
While speeding around a corner in Huntington Beach, Van Allen lost control of his truck as it skidded over the curb, bounced up and struck a tree. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the truck actually flipped in midair or merely rolled on its side before eventually coming to rest on its wheels. But witness Brian Burgess saw Costello thrown about the cab of the truck and said he fell to the ground "like a dead fish" when the car stopped and the passenger door sprang open.
Fortunately, Costello survived the accident, but he sustained life-threatening injuries and was hospitalized for over two months. His injuries included brain damage, a punctured lung and multiple bone fractures. He also sustained a plethora of lacerations and bruises to his right side.
Although emergency workers found Van Allen in the driver's seat of the truck, the defense contended that Costello was the driver and that the impact of the crash caused him and Van Allen to switch positions in the vehicle. The jury rejected this contention and convicted Van Allen of causing injury while driving under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23153.
That section makes it unlawful for any person, while under the influence of alcohol, "to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver." (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) For purposes of appeal, Van Allen admits he drove under the influence and neglected his legal duty to ensure Costello was wearing a seatbelt. (See Veh. Code, § 27315, subd. (d)(1).) However, he claims his conviction must be reversed because the prosecution did not prove through expert testimony that such neglect proximately caused Costello's injuries. The claim is not well taken.
"Although courts have not always used the same language, the decisive consideration in determining the [necessity] of expert opinion evidence is whether the subject of inquiry is one of such common knowledge that [persons] of ordinary education could reach a conclusion as intelligently as the witness or whether, on the other hand, the matter is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert" is required. (People v. Cole (1956) 47 Cal.2d 99, 103.)
In determining whether expert testimony is needed in seat belt cases, courts have looked to just what it is the jury is being called on to decide. If the jury has to make an apportionment of damages and decide precisely which injuries would have been prevented had the victim worn a seatbelt, expert testimony is generally required. (See, e.g., Truman v. Vargas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 976, 982-983.) For in that situation, the jury is being asked to "distinguish arbitrarily among injuries in terms of cause." (Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112, 125.)
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|