 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Van Allen1/19/2005
But, as illustrated in McNeil v. Yellow Cab. Co. (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 116, expert testimony is typically not required to prove the absence of a seatbelt was a proximate cause of at least some of the victim's injuries. In McNeil, the defendant cab company argued the plaintiff should have been obliged to present expert testimony his injuries were caused by the company's failure to provide visible seatbelts in their taxis. The court rejected that argument: "Plaintiff testified that he was not wearing a seat belt because he could not find any, and that the impact of the collision threw him from the right rear seat of the taxicab to its left front area where his head and arm struck some objects with the result that, presumably among other injuries, he broke an arm. It seems clear, simply as a matter of common sense, that the absence of seatbelt restraint under these circumstances proximately caused at least some, if not all, of plaintiff's claimed injuries. The subject of inquiry, namely, the question whether the absence of seat belt restraint under these circumstances constituted a proximate cause of plaintiff's claimed injuries, was one of such common knowledge that persons of ordinary education could reach an intelligent answer. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 118; see also Franklin v. Gibson (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 340, 342-343 [while expert testimony is required to establish the nature of the injuries the victim would have sustained if he had worn a seatbelt, it is not needed to prove nonuse of seatbelt was a proximate cause of at least some of the victim's injuries].)
Because proximate cause in criminal cases is determined by ordinary principles of causation (People v. Armitage (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 405, 420), these cases are most helpful in determining whether the prosecution was required to present expert testimony in proving the element of causation under Vehicle Code section 23153. As noted, that element is satisfied whenever a drunk driver fails to have his passengers buckle up and that failure "proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver." (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); see generally People v. Weems (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 854.) Thus, in this case the jury was not required to determine which injuries Costello would have sustained had he used a seatbelt. Rather, it simply had to decide whether his failure to use a seatbelt caused at least some of his injuries.
Given the circumstances of the crash, we believe that question was well within the common knowledge of ordinary jurors. First of all, we know Costello flew about in the truck because Burgess saw him careen toward the windshield and fall out of the truck "like a dead fish." That is precisely what seatbelts are designed to prevent. Second, it is undisputed Costello suffered severe and extensive injuries as a result of the crash. We agree with the Attorney General that common sense alone would have allowed the jury to conclude a seatbelt would have helped Costello, at least in terms of preventing some of his injuries. Therefore, the prosecution was not required to present expert testimony on the issue of causation.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., ARONSON, J.
|