Title: Jones v. Blegen
Citation: 420 P.2d 404
Docket Number: 21096
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: November 28, 1966

420 P.2d 404 (1966) Wilbur E. JONES, Bonnie Jones, Eleanor C. Buckles, also known as Eleanor C. Buckles Medill, and Tom McDonald by his father and next friend Paul L. McDonald and Paul L. McDonald, Individually, Plaintiffs in Error, v. George BLEGEN, Defendant in Error. No. 21096. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. November 28, 1966. *405 Laurence A. Ardell, Pueblo, for plaintiffs in error. H. Myers Bumgardner, Charles D. Pierce, Pueblo, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. Plaintiffs in error will be referred to as the plaintiffs or where less than all of them are included the reference will be by name. Defendant in error will be mentiond by name or as the defendant. The action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on December 21, 1962, at about 11:30 P.M. on a bridge located approximately two or three miles west of Pueblo on the highway between that city and Canon City, Colorado. Two persons who were passengers in the motor vehicle operated by Larry Powers were killed in the accident: Lynne Buckles, age sixteen died at the scene, and Bertha Mae Jones, age seventeen, died the following day. The plaintiffs Wilbur E. Jones and Bonnie Jones were the natural parents of Bertha, and in the first statement of claim of the complaint have brought an action under the wrongful death statute against the defendant George Blegen, the driver of the other vehicle involved. The plaintiff Eleanor C. Medill was the only surviving parent of Lynne Buckles, and in the second statement of claim has brought an action under the wrongful death statute. The other passenger in Powers' vehicle, Tom McDonald, sets forth his claim for personal injuries in the third statement of claim of the complaint. On the evening of December 21, 1962, Larry Powers, Tom McDonald, Bertha Mae Jones and Lynne Buckles left Pueblo for Canon City about 7:00 P.M. The four teenagers went to Canon City and had dinner. At about 11:00 P.M. on the same date they started their return trip to Pueblo, and at the time of the accident Lynne Buckles was asleep in the front seat next to Larry Powers and Bertha Mae Jones had dozed in the back seat next to Tom Mc-Donald. No one in the Powers' vehicle had been drinking and a blood alcohol specimen taken from Powers reflected no trace of alcohol. The defendant George Blegen who lives in Canon City came to Pueblo at about 6:30 P.M. to attend a Christmas party sponsored by his employer, Houston Construction Co., at the Top of the Town. His arrival there was approximately two and one-half hours prior to the time that a dinner, accompanied by alcoholic drinks, was served. He admittedly consumed three drinks before dinner, and "a few drinks" were consumed by him during the course of the meal. After leaving the Christmas party he drove to the Columbine Inn Bar in Pueblo and he testified that while there he purchased a beer and drank about half of it, however a witness called by the defendant testified that he saw defendant seated at a table in the Columbine Inn Bar and that there appeared to be two mixed drinks on the table at which the defendant was seated. Verlyn D. Peterson, a laboratory technologist at the City County Health Center, testified that he withdrew a specimen of blood from Mr. Blegen at 2:15 A.M. on December 22, 1962, and thereafter analyzed it and it measured .19. Dr. Robert Marsh, a pathologist, testified that in his opinion a person having a concentration of blood of .19 was intoxicated. The approach to the bridge, where the cars collided, from the west going east is downgrade on a hill, and this road is straight. The approach to the bridge from the east going west is level and there is a curve which commences 361 feet east of the east end of the bridge. The road at the scene of the accident was an asphalt surface road. It was 24 feet wide and was a two-lane highway. The witness Larry Powers testified that he was proceeding cast and there was no traffic ahead of him *406 proceeding in the same direction, nor was there any traffic behind him. He stated he was going fifty to sixty miles per hour. His account of the accident was as follows: * * * * * * "A. I would estimate around 600 feet, but I am not sure. * * * * * * "Q. Yes, sir. When did you leave your side of the road? "Q. And why did you do that, Larry, if you know? "Q. Why couldn't you go to the right? "A. The bridge was there. "Q. Why didn't you just go straight ahead? The defendant testified that he was driving his car on the right-hand side of the road as he approached the bridge. He stated that the car driven by Powers "was coming directly towards me on my side of the road. I triedI swerved to the right and applied my brakes." Highway patrolmen took measurements of the skid marks laid down by the two cars. The Powers car left 162 feet of skid marks west of the point of impact before crossing the center line of the highway. The rear wheels of his car then crossed the center line at a point 32 feet before the impact of the cars on the bridge. This distance of 32 feet showed tire marks indicating that Powers had turned his car to the left. The car of the defendant left 90 feet of skid marks, all of which were on his right-hand side of the road. The case does not involve any issue of contributory negligence since the driver of the car traveling in an easterly direction is not a party to the action. Upon trial to a jury verdicts were returned in favor of the defendant, upon which judgments were entered. The case is here on writ of error seeking reversal of these judgments. In his argument for reversal of the judgments counsel for plaintiffs asserts that: The record bearing upon this point shows that the defendant called four witnesses for the purpose of meeting the evidence offered by the plaintiffs, tending to prove that the defendant was intoxicated. All of these witnesses attended the party sponsored by the defendant's employer. Throughout the course of the dinner bottles of liquor were on the table and the guests served themselves as often as they pleased, and in such amounts as they saw fit to pour into the glass. The dinner party broke up at around 10:30 P.M. The type of question which each of these four witnesses was permitted to answer, over the objection of the plaintiffs' attorney, is illustrated by the following which is quoted from the testimony of the witness Joe Carlino: "THE COURT: Objection is overruled. "Q. Would you answer the question, sir? "A. Let me hear that question again. "MR. PIERCE: Thank you. The only evidence tending to show any basis upon which Carlino could form an opinion concerning the sobriety of the defendant was the following: The witness said that there were two "mixed drink" glasses on the table before the defendant. Another witness, one Robert Reinert, a nondrinking employee of the Houston Construction Company who was present at the party hosted by the company, testified as follows: "Q. Did you have any particular duties at this party? "A. I did. * * * * * * "A. My opinion is that he was not inebriated enough not to "THE COURT: The Court will overrule the objection. Questions were asked of two other witnesses as to whether he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor to such an extent that "he would not be a safe person to be driving an automobile." The objections made by counsel for the plaintiffs to the testimony of each of these four witnesses were good. A lay witness who has had sufficient opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of another may express an opinion as to whether the latter was intoxicated. The rule on intoxication is the *408 same as that applicable to mental condition. As quoted with approval by this court in Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674, we are committed to the rule that: Turley v. People, 73 Colo. 518, 216 P. 536; Smith v. People, 120 Colo. 39, 206 P.2d 826. Whether the ability of a person to drive an automobile has been impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor is a subject upon which a lay witness cannot express an opinion. The testimony of those who made the alcohol test of blood taken from the defendant was that a normal person whose blood showed a concentration of .19 of alcohol would be intoxicated. Dr. Marsh testified, inter alia, as follows: In the instant case the blood sample was drawn about three hours after the accident and the evidence was that the concentration of alcohol in the bloodstream would be less at that time than it was at the time of the accident. The question as to whether the defendant by the use of alcohol had reduced his ability to think; whether his judgment was made poor; whether he had normal control of his muscles and limbs; and whether his reactions were slowed down by the alcohol in his blood, were of the utmost importance in determining whether the witness Powers gave a truthful account of the accident and the cause thereof. The evidence offered by the four witnesses who expressed their "opinions" as to whether the defendant was an "unfit" driver, fell far short of being competent for the consideration of the jury. This evidence was stressed in argument by counsel for the defendant. It might well have been a controlling consideration in the minds of the jurors and was clearly prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. SUTTON, C. J., and McWILLIAMS, J., concur.