People v. Allison

California Court of Appeal Jan 16, 1951Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for reckless driving under section 505 of the Vehicle Code, as the defendant's conduct did not rise above the level of negligence or gross negligence.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for reckless driving under section 505 of the Vehicle Code.
Whether the defendant's conduct constituted 'wilful or wanton disregard' for the safety of others.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is of course thoroughly settled that negligence, even though it be gross negligence, is not wilful misconduct and does not amount to reckless driving.”

“Viewing the evidence here most favorable to the judgment, we believe it is insufficient to sustain the conviction.”

“At most the defendant can be said to have been negligent, possibly grossly negligent, but there is no evidence that he wilfully and wantonly disregarded the safety of the complaining witness”

101 Cal.App.2d Supp. 932 (1951) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

DAVID NESBIT ALLISON, Appellant.

California Court of Appeals.

Jan. 16, 1951. Overton, Lyman, Prince & Vermille and Carl J. Schuck for Appellant.

James Don Keller, District Attorney, Harold P. Curtis and H. D. Cornell, Deputies District Attorney, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

Defendant was convicted in the Justice's Court of Encinitas Township, San Diego County, of reckless driving, contrary to section 505 of the Vehicle Code. The gravamen of the offense is driving upon a public highway "in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property."

The record presents several grounds of appeal, but the defendant has waived all grounds except the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

[1] To convict under section 505 of the Vehicle Code, it is necessary that the trier of fact be convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the defendant in the management of his automobile at the time and place in question intentionally did something with knowledge that injury to another was probable or acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others and in reckless disregard of the consequences of his acts.

We have reviewed many cases of our appellate tribunals construing the language of section 505 of the Vehicle Code under varying circumstances. These definitions are collected and well summarized in the case of People v. McNutt, 40 Cal.App.2d Supp. 835 [105 P.2d 657]. In that case the court observed that the statute did not penalize a state of mind [101 Cal.App.2d Supp. 934] but penalized conduct indicating a state of mind that was wilful and was indicative of wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. In seeking an objective test that could be applied to the conduct in question, the court decided that reckless driving was conduct such as would indicate consciousness of the results with intent to omit or do an act, realizing the probable injury to another; or acting in reckless disregard of the consequences; or conduct exhibiting reckless indifference as to the probable consequences with knowledge of likely resulting injury.

Considering this definition, the court concluded that "reckless driving" and "wilful misconduct," which under the guest statute (Veh. Code, 403) rendered a driver liable for injuries to his guest, were very similar. At page 839 the court says:

People v. Allison

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief