Case Name: THE STATE v. JOHNSON
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1998-10-19
Citations: 270 Ga. 111
Docket Number: S98A0595
Parties: THE STATE v. JOHNSON.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Benham, C. J., Carley and Hines, JJ, who dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 270
Pages: 111–117

Head Matter:
S98A0595.
THE STATE v. JOHNSON.
(507 SE2d 443)

Opinion:
Thompson, Justice.
This is a case of first impression in which we are asked to decide whether OCGA § 40-6-275 is unconstitutionally vague. We find that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because the term "extensive property damage" is so indefinite that a person of reasonable understanding cannot know whether the law is being violated.
Defendant Johnny Johnson was driving a tractor-trailer northbound on Interstate 85 when he collided with a northbound automobile. The automobile came to a stop in the median emergency lane. It was not driveable.
Johnson stopped his tractor-trailer approximately 200 feet north of the automobile, in the middle northbound lane. He exited the tractor-trailer and began placing warning devices behind it. A few minutes later, a northbound pickup truck ran into the back of Johnson's tractor-trailer. The three occupants of the pickup truck were killed.
Via accusation, Johnson was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide in the second degree. See OCGA § 40-6-393 (b). These charges were predicated on the alleged violation of OCGA § 40-6-275. Johnson moved to quash the accusation, asserting the unconstitutionality of OCGA § 40-6-275. The trial court found the statute unconstitutional and granted Johnson's motion to quash. The State appeals.
To withstand a vagueness attack, a statute " 'must so definitely and certainly define the offense that a person of reasonable understanding can know at the time of the commission of the act that the law is being violated.' [Cit.]" Bilbrey v. State, 254 Ga. 629, 631 (331 SE2d 551) (1985). OCGA § 40-6-275 fails to meet this test.
The statute requires the driver of a vehicle involved in a traffic accident on a multilane highway to move his vehicle out of harm's way unless the accident includes personal injury, death, or extensive property damage. OCGA § 40-6-275 (c). Thus, before removing a vehicle involved in an accident from the roadway, a driver must first ascertain whether any injuries or fatalities have occurred. If no injuries or fatalities occurred, he must then determine whether any vehicle has incurred "extensive property damage."
If no vehicle incurred extensive property damage the driver must remove his vehicle from the roadway to minimize the chance of further accidents. If, on the other hand, any vehicle has incurred extensive property damage, the driver must leave the vehicle where it comes to rest to facilitate the ensuing investigation. This puts a driver on the horns of a dilemma because the term "extensive property damage" can mean different things to different people: Does the term "extensive property damage" depend upon the quantity of physical damage to a vehicle? If so, what percentage of the vehicle must be damaged, ten percent, twenty percent, or fifty percent? Or does the term depend upon the part of the vehicle which is damaged? If so, must the damage be more than cosmetic; does damage to a fender and door suffice; or must the damage be to a mechanical part? Or, does the term "extensive property damage" depend upon the cost of repairs? If so, does the term mean the cost of repairs must exceed $500, $1,000, or $5,000? Reasonable people will differ in their approach to these questions — and the statute provides no answers. Thus, OCGA § 40-6-275 compels a driver who is involved in an accident and who believes in good faith that a vehicle has incurred "extensive" property damage, to leave his vehicle in the roadway at his peril, not knowing whether others will conclude that the damage was something less than "extensive." Such a statute cannot be said to " 'furnish a test based on normal criteria which men of common intelligence who come in contact with the statute may use with reasonable safety in determining its command.' [Cit.]" Bilbrey v. State, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Benham, C. J., Carley and Hines, JJ, who dissent.
OCGA § 40-6-275 applies to motor vehicle traffic accidents which occur on the expressways and multilane highways of this state. Subsection (c) of that statute reads:
When a motor vehicle traffic accident occurs with no personal injury, death, or extensive property damage, it shall be the duty of the drivers of the motor vehicles involved in such traffic accident, or any other occupant of any such motor vehicle who possesses a valid driver's license, to remove said vehicles from the immediate confines of the roadway into a safe refuge on the shoulder, emergency lane, or median or to a place otherwise removed from the roadway whenever such moving of a vehicle can be done safely and the vehicle is capable of being normally and safely driven, does not require towing, and can be operated under its own power in its customary manner without further damage or hazard to itself, to the traffic elements, or to the roadway. The driver of any such motor vehicle may request any person who possesses a valid driver's license to remove any such motor vehicle as provided in this Code section, and any such person so requested shall be authorized to .comply with such request.
Johnson's tractor-trailer struck the right side of the automobile, causing damage to the right front fender, wheel well, and door. The rim of the wheel was bent, and the tire was flat.