State Immunity in Drunk Driving Cases
Drunk drivers receive little sympathy in Arizona. When someone makes the decision to drink and drive, that person puts everyone else on the road at risk of serious injury.
May 15, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- State Immunity in Drunk Driving Cases
Article provided by Christopher J. Zachar
Visit us at www.zacharassociates.com
In April 2003, Lee Bryan DeVries was driving while intoxicated when he lost control of his vehicle and entered the median on State Route 101. He hit a three-stranded cable barrier designed to prevent him from crossing into oncoming traffic. Although the barrier served its purpose, one of the cables pierced the top of the car and strangled Mr. Devries.
His mother sued the state of Arizona in a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that the state was negligent in designing, selecting, installing, constructing and maintaining the barrier. The state asserted immunity as granted by A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(7), the qualified immunity statute, which eliminates state liability for car accidents involving drunk drivers. In turn, his mother asserted that this grant of immunity violated the Arizona Constitution.
In a recent ruling, nearly six years after the original accident, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the qualified immunity statute does not violate the Arizona Constitution and that the Arizona legislature acted within the scope of its authority when enacting this legislation. Because of Mr. Devries' intoxication, his mother had no recourse against the state in a wrongful death lawsuit.
As demonstrated by this case, drunk drivers receive little sympathy in Arizona -- and they shouldn't. When someone makes the decision to drink and drive, that person puts everyone else on the road at risk of serious injury. However, despite the fact that drunk drivers have made poor choices, the qualified immunity statute is problematic.
Liability for Negligence in Arizona
Generally under Arizona law, negligent parties are held accountable for the injuries they cause. If more than one person or organization is negligent and this results in injuries, both parties can be held responsible in accordance with their respective degrees of fault. For example, if a jury determines that a car accident was 90 percent the fault of one driver and 10 percent the fault of another driver, then the ultimate amount one driver can recover for his or her injuries will be offset by his or her personal degree of responsibility.
This is a sensible approach to liability; using this system, the negligence of one person doesn't negate that of another. All negligent people or organizations are held accountable for their actions. The qualified immunity law at issue in this case is an exception to this general approach. Under this law, public agencies and employees are immune from liability for negligence if someone is injured while driving drunk.
Problems With Qualified Immunity
Completely eliminating liability in such circumstances is unwise in some respects. Certainly, choosing to drink and drive is a clear act of negligence, which must be considered in determining liability for any accident. However, the fact that a person is driving while intoxicated does not change the fact that a public agency may have made significant errors in the design or construction of a road and should be held accountable for those errors.
Financial accountability in these circumstances serves two purposes: it encourages public agencies to act more cautiously in the future, and it compensates individuals and families for the harms they have suffered. By eliminating the potential for liability in these cases, the statute undermines both of these purposes.
Furthermore, the immunity for cases involving drunk drivers is arbitrary. Drunk driving is just one of many negligent actions a driver might take that puts others at risk. For example, if Mr. DeVries had been travelling at 110 miles per hour while sober and lost control of his vehicle, clearly he would still have been negligent. However, if he hit the same barrier with the same result, the state would not be categorically immune from liability. The question of liability would be left to be determined by a jury.
It is important to note that removing the immunity and allowing a jury to decide matters of liability in no way ensures that the state would be deemed responsible for the injuries resulting from a drunk driving accident. Even if the law granting immunity was repealed, a jury in Arizona would still be given the responsibility to determine the liability of the individual driver and the Arizona public agencies. Certainly, evidence of severe intoxication would weigh heavily against any compensation for an injured drunk driver. However, by eliminating any potential liability on the part of the state and its agencies, the legislature is taking away accountability that should exist.
The circumstances surrounding an accident matter; in almost all cases, juries are trusted to evaluate these circumstances and determine issues of liability, and this has proven to be an effective arrangement. Although carving out exceptions for drunk drivers may be constitutionally permissible under the Arizona Constitution, it is a poor policy decision and the legislature should reconsider the statute.
Further Related Resources:
Press Release Contact Information:
PR Dept
Website: Visit Our Website
