Personal Injury Law

Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

By Benjamin J. Sansone, Esq.

As a St Louis personal injury law firm handling car accident and other types of injury cases involving intoxicated or drugged individuals who caused the accident or injury, proving intoxication is critical to maximizing value of my clients' cases.

In many cases the at fault driver that caused the truck accident and injury is charged with DWI or other intoxicated related offense and the police officer's investigation can often be piggybacked by injury lawyers to show intoxication. However, not all cases are properly investigated by police officers or investigated for intoxication at all.

What other evidence is there to show intoxication? Because I guarantee the at fault driver will not admit it, especially after their insurance company and their lawyers have gotten to them.

One example is a Crawford county Missouri drunk driving head injury case we are currently handling. My client was thrown from a vehicle as a result of the driver's erratic driving in a resort area and in a private parking area and driveway. The driver stopped and witnesses called the police, however, prior to the police arriving the driver hid and was never interviewed by the police. So in this case we need to use the lay witnesses to prove intoxication. Luckily a security guard witnessed the incident, observed the driver after she exited the vehicle, and called the police.

Under Missouri law a defendant may be proven to be intoxicated by any witnesses who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him or her. State v McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622 (Mo Ct App 1994)

Whether a defendant is intoxicated may be proven by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him. State v. McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo. App.1994); State v. Corum, 821 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo.App.1992).

[I]ntoxication is a "`physical condition usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurring of speech, lack of body coordination and an impairment of motor reflexes.'" [State v. Ruark, 720 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App.1986) ] at 454 (quoting State v. Blumer, 546 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Mo.App. 1977)).

Lay witnesses need to convey factors such as opportunity to observe the defendant, knowledge of drinking earlier in the day, balance, motor skills, bloodshot eyes, erratic driving, smell of alcohol, etc... Granted it is always better to have a trained police officer than a lay witness, but the lay witnesses testimony is admissible for the jury to then decide.

Full post as published by Missouri Injury Law Blog on December 22, 2010 (boomark / email).