4/1/2009 4:14:00 PM Court rules drunks can't sue for roadway injuries
BY HOWARD FISCHER Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- Drunk drivers who injure or kill themselves can't sue state or local governments on claims that the roadway design was faulty, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled this week.
In a unanimous decision, the judges said the immunity statute approved by lawmakers in 2003 is not unconstitutional. The judges specifically rejected arguments by the attorney for Theresa DeVries that the constitution requires that questions of relative negligence of her deceased husband and the state be decided by a jury.
The case involves a 2003 accident where Lee DeVries was driving on the Loop 101. According to witnesses, he lost control of the vehicle and entered the median where his car hit a three-stranded barrier.
Judge John Gemmill said that cable prevented the vehicle from traveling into oncoming traffic. But one of the cables pierced the soft top of the convertible, pinning DeVries by the neck and asphyxiating him.
Two separate tests showed he was legally intoxicated.
His widow sued, saying the state was negligent in the design, installation, construction and maintenance of the cable barrier.
Attorneys for the state responded by citing the 2003 law.
That statute says public agencies and employees are immune from liability for any injuries to the driver of a motor vehicle if that person was violating state laws on driving while intoxicated. The only exception is in cases where a plaintiff can show the government or its worker was grossly negligent.
Based on that, the trial judge threw the case out, leading to this appeal.
There was no dispute about DeVries being intoxicated, or even that his condition was a cause of the mishap. But the widow's lawyer argued that the constitution says questions of contributory negligence -- whether someone was partly responsible for his or her own injury or death -- "shall, at all times, be left to the jury.'
Gemmill, however, rejected the argument that there is a conflict between the law and the constitution.
The court also brushed aside the widow's argument that granting immunity in this kind of case will diminish or destroy the duty of governments to use reasonable care when designing highways.
Gemmill said the law does not bar ordinary drivers from filing negligence suits against the state, blocking only lawsuits from those who drive while drunk.
Reader Comments
Posted: Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Article comment by:
It's about time ...
Its about time people are held responsible for their actions. I hope the court required the defendant to pay all cost that resulted from the accident also.
