Contact a local lawyer now for a FREE consultation!  

(800)384-5297

www.myduiattorney.org interviews Lawrence Taylor, the ‘dean’ of DUI at his offices in Long Beach, California. Larry attributes his success in the DUI defense field to years of experience, an understanding of biochemistry, the biology of the eye, how alcohol is processed in the body, the technical basis of breathalyzers, and more – in essence, DUI is an extremely complex area of criminal law.

A DUI or Driving under the Influence charge is much more serious of an event than most people think. Especially in Los Angeles and the Southern California area, where driving is a large part of one?s daily life. The common thought amongst most people is that a DUI is not a serious crime and is more of a traffic violation. The reality is that it is as serious as any other crime and the penalties associated with it might even come with a heavier burden and price tag.

A DUI is something that can happen to any person and in most cases is a crime that is charged to those members of the community that are least likely to be involved in any criminal matter. Hence, a DUI can happen to anyone. Therefore, DUI?s are crimes that occur with greater frequency than other crimes in our society. For this reason, law enforcement and government policy have been more stringent on the penalties it imposes on the offenders.

So how does a DUI affect a Southern Californian? The mere nature of the infrastructure in the Greater Los Angeles area and Southern California requires one to use a personal vehicle for transportation more than other metropolitan areas. As well, due to the size of the city, Southern Californians are prone to commute longer distances than most other cities, putting them more situations where they have to make a judgment of whether they are able to drive after consuming alcoholic beverages. As well as placing many Los Angeles drivers in a higher risk of encountering a drunk driver. Therefore, stopping drunk drivers is an objective of high priority for local law enforcement agencies.

If a driver is convicted of a DUI in Los Angeles, the penalties will have great and lasting effects on them. For one, the DUI offender will face criminal charges. A conviction in a criminal court can impose a sentence involving jail time, alcohol programs, drug programs, community service, Cal Trans work, etc. The court will make a decision based on the circumstances of the case. A conviction by the criminal court will appear on the defendant?s criminal record.

A DUI will also affect one?s driver license privileges. A separate hearing by the DMV (California Department of Motor Vehicles) will determine whether restrictions on one?s driver license should be placed. After reviewing the evidence on the matter and testimony by the arresting officer, the DMV can either leave the license in tact without restrictions, suspend for a certain amount of time, revoke the license, or make the license restrictive for driving to and from work. Losing a driving license in Los Angeles is a greater burden than any other place, as it may affect how you get to work and public transportation isn?t always a possibility in LA. Any infraction on ones license can have a severe impact on their way in life in Los Angeles.

A DUI will also have some serious financial burdens to the one arrested. Between court fines, and programs required and attorney?s fees, a DUI will cost several thousands of dollars. This is not including any cost associated with higher insurance premiums.

A DUI can affect other factors as employment. A DUI shows on your criminal record which is in many circumstances is requested by potential employers. Many employers view a DUI as a testament to one?s responsibility and reliability. Therefore, a DUI can also cost someone a potential employment opportunity.

With all the possible burdening effects a DUI can have on a individual, it is in one?s best interest to at the least consult a experienced DUI Lawyer. A knowledgeable Los Angeles DUI Lawyer can either dismiss your case if the circumstances are there or minimize the potential charges and infractions on your license, saving you more money in the long run.

Originally published here.

RICHARD BUSBOOM, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; THOMAS E. KELLER, Real Party in Interest
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
December 18, 1980

The Petitioner Richard Busboom and his brother Dean were riding motorcycles when Dean was run down by Keller, driving a car in the wrong lane while drunk. The petitioner was seriously injured. He brought this lawsuit along with the parents of both boys, who however have since settled. Although the original complaint, filed October 24, 1978 alleged in general terms Keller’s willful, reckless and wanton misconduct, those allegations were not sufficient to recover punitive damages. However, after Taylor came down in August 1979, Richard sought leave to amend his complaint with appropriate allegations, and the superior court granted such leave on March 6, 1980, soon after Mau, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d 875, was decided. Petitioner brought an action against real party, which sought punitive damages. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for driver, and stuck the punitive damage claim. Petitioner injured person sought a writ of mandate ordering respondent Superior Court of San Diego County to vacate its grant of partial summary judgment striking petitioner’s claim for punitive damages in petitioner’s suit against real party in interest drunk driver.

Issues:

Whether Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 [157 Cal.Rptr. 693, 598 P.2d 854], permitting recovery of punitive damages in an appropriate drunk driving case, shall apply retroactively to accidents occurring before August 1979?

Whether the victim’s amended complaint was sufficient to claim punitive damages?

Discussion:

This court held that overruling decisions, especially in the tort field, are normally applied retroactively unless there has been great public reliance on the earlier rule, the new rule was nowhere foreshadowed, and it would be unfair to apply the rule retrospectively. Retrospective application in cases like these is not an enormous burden. It affects only cases pending, or still within the statute of limitations for such claims, when Taylor was decided. That number is not large, since the short tort statute of limitations will limit the retrospective effect to accidents occurring after August 1978, as well as all cases already filed and pending when Taylor came down. This limited effect is not an unconscionable burden on insurance companies.

This court also held the victim’s complaint, as amended, was sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages, since it specifically alleged a deliberate disregard for the safety and interest of others such as to constitute malice. The original complaint stated Keller was intoxicated as the result of his “willful acts”; he drove his pickup truck southbound in the northbound lane of the highway in reckless disregard for the safety of northbound traffic, injuring plaintiffs. The later amendment further pleaded Keller drove when intoxicated with knowledge of the safety hazard he created and was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, which he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid. It further states Keller’s conduct shows he acted with a conscious and deliberate disregard for the safety and interest of others such as to constitute malice. It is not clear this pleading would have sufficed under the approach taken in Gombos v. Ashe, supra, 158 Cal.App.2d 517, but it is certainly sufficient under G. D. Searle & Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 22, read in conjunction with Taylor. Although such a pleading might have been deemed insufficient before Taylor, we find it neither unfair nor unreasonable to permit it now, particularly because, as pointed out in Dawes, it is not clear Taylor has really changed the law as it applies to this pleading.

Conclusion:

This court hence granted the writ of mandate and ordered respondent trial court to vacate its order of summary judgment and to issue a new order denying summary judgment because punitive damages were appropriate where there was conscious disregard for safety. This court found that the actions of real party in interest drunk driver indicated a conscious disregard.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.