How have courts dealt with the issue of obvious intoxication in a motor vehicle accident case?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Trenier v. California Investment & Development Corp., 105 Cal.App.3d 44, 164 Cal.Rptr. 156 (Cal. App. 1980):

In this area, there are actually only two cases, both being wrongful death cases. The first is Paula v. Gagnon (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 680, 146 Cal.Rptr. 702. There decedent went to three taverns, consumed at least enough alcohol to have had a .19 percent blood alcohol reading, and killed himself in a single car accident on his way home. Defendants moved for summary judgment and were successful in the trial court, but fared less well on appeal. The appellate decision was, that the question of obvious intoxication was one of fact, as was the question of willful misconduct. Indeed, that court stated that "(b)ecause we have concluded that in the present procedural situation the complaint does not reveal willful misconduct as a matter of law, we need not decide whether such a showing would bar recovery by appellants." (Paula v. Gagnon, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at p. 685, 146 Cal.Rptr. at p. 705, emphasis added.)

In Sissle v. Stefenoni (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 633, 152 Cal.Rptr. 56, that very question was presented, and a judgment of dismissal like one in the instant case (after general demurrer sustained without leave to amend) was affirmed by a different division of the same appellate court. There, as here, it was alleged that the drinking driver-to-be was served alcohol in a bar while already obviously intoxicated, and that the [105 Cal.App.3d 48] bar personnel knew he would leave there and drive his car. He did get in his car while intoxicated, drove on the wrong side of a highway, and was killed in an automobile accident. The court held that these allegations ultimately alleged that the decedent had violated sections 23102(a) and 21650 of the Vehicle Code (drunk driving and driving on the wrong side of the highway). "These actions were necessarily in disregard of the rights and safety of others. Decedent was guilty of willful misconduct barring the present action." (Sissle v. Stefenoni, supra, at p. 636, 152 Cal.Rptr., at p. 57.)

Other Questions


What is the test for determining whether a defendant is liable for a motor vehicle accident under the California Vehicle Accident Act or the California Motor Vehicle Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts dealt with the issue of misconduct by counsel counsel in a motor vehicle accident case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated allegations of motor vehicle theft in the context of a motor vehicle accident? (California, United States of America)
Does section 3110 of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Code of Civil Procedure (Motor Vehicle Accident and Accident Benefits Act) apply to a mechanic's lien claimant? (California, United States of America)
Does the phrase "as a result of" in a motor vehicle accident apply to a section of the Motor Vehicle Accident Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts dealt with the deficiency of a complaint in a motor vehicle accident case? (California, United States of America)
Can a plaintiff bring an action under the California Motor Vehicle Accident Prevention Act for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident? (California, United States of America)
How have we dealt with the issue of permissive inference in a motor vehicle accident case? (California, United States of America)
In a motor vehicle accident case, how have the courts interpreted the standard factor (a)-(b) and (b) instruction in determining the severity of the accident? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts dealt with the issue of due process in a motor vehicle case? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.