People v. Mace
198 Cal. App. 4th 875
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Mace was convicted under Vehicle Code 20001 for leaving the scene of a one-vehicle accident without assisting an injured person.
- Pauline Mace, the passenger, was injured (left hip dislocation) and later treated at a hospital; she indicated Mace was driving while drinking.
- Mace had a high blood alcohol concentration and initially denied driving; investigators connected him to the vehicle and accident.
- The vehicle owner was Mace; Pauline testified to Mace driving, while Mace claimed not to remember the crash and to have been sleeping in the truck.
- The information charged three counts: DUI causing injury (counts 1-2) and failing to render aid under 20001(a).
- Jury trial resulted in a conviction on count 3 with a great bodily injury enhancement; counts 1 and 2 ended in mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of injury and duty to aid | Mace knew of Pauline’s injury and thus had duty to assess needs | No specific amplifying instruction required beyond knowledge of injury | Knowledge triggers duty to ascertain needed aid |
| Owner’s duty when driver is injured | Owner/driver relation imposes duties under 20001/20003 | Ownership-control theory should not impose duties if not driving | Owner riding with control is a driver; duties apply to injured in vehicle regardless of actual driver status |
| Control over vehicle and consent | Owner with control liable; consent not required for duty to render aid | Consent issue should negate liability if no actual control | Ownership-and-control theory supports liability; consent amplifying instruction not required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harbert, 170 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (knowledge of injury required for liability under 20001/20003)
- Scheer, 68 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1998) (driver’s duty to render assistance requires ascertainment of needs)
- People v. Poggi, 45 Cal.3d 306 (Cal. 1988) (statutory language as basis for instruction; amplification unnecessary)
- People v. Monismith, 1 Cal.App.3d 762 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1969) (owner with control can be liable as a driver)
- People v. Odom, 19 Cal.App.2d 641 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1937) (owner present with control liable under hit-and-run statutes)
- Bailey v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.App.3d 513 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1970) (humanitarian purpose of hit-and-run statutes; duty to anyone injured)