Opinion ID: 6357894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Suspension

Text: [¶ 20] Finally, Richard contends that the Hearing Examiner's finding that his operation at the time of the fatal accident  was negligent was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. [¶ 21] When the Superior Court acts in an intermediate appellate capacity pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, we review the administrative agency's decision directly for errors of law, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Melevsky v. Sec'y of State , 2018 ME 46 , ¶ 6, 182 A.3d 731 (quotation marks omitted). Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind would rely on that evidence as sufficient support for a conclusion. Osprey Family Tr. v. Town of Owls Head , 2016 ME 89 , ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114 (quotation marks omitted). We examine the entire record to determine whether the [Hearing Examiner] could fairly and reasonably find the facts as [she] did. Rangeley Crossroads Coal. v. Land Use Regulation Comm'n , 2008 ME 115 , ¶ 10, 955 A.2d 223 . Richard bears the burden of persuasion on appeal because he seeks to vacate the Secretary of State's decision. See Osprey Family Tr. , 2016 ME 89 , ¶ 9, 141 A.3d 1114 . [¶ 22] Section 2458(2-A) mandates that the Secretary of State suspend for a period of at least 3 years a person's license if the Secretary of State, based on the Secretary of State's records or other sufficient evidence, finds that person to have negligently operated a motor vehicle in a manner so as to cause the death of another person. [¶ 23] We have previously held that [i]n any ordinary case, one cannot go to sleep while driving an automobile without having relaxed the vigilance which the law requires, without having been negligent; it lies within his own control to keep awake or cease from driving; and so the mere fact of his going to sleep while driving is a proper basis for an inference of negligence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, and sufficient for a recovery, if no circumstances tending to excuse or justify his conduct are proven. Gendron v. Gendron , 144 Me. 347 , 350, 69 A.2d 668 (1949) (quotation marks omitted). The Hearing Examiner's finding that Richard fell asleep while driving his vehicle is supported by competent evidence. On multiple occasions after the accident, Richard reported that he must have dozed off. The only circumstance tending to excuse Richard's conduct is his alleged cardiac event, but the Hearing Examiner reasonably concluded that the evidence in the record was insufficient to support that theory. Further, as the Hearing Examiner found with support in the record, regardless of the reason for the fatigue, Richard was aware that he was tired but chose to keep driving, hoping to make it to a truck stop. The Hearing Examiner did not err by concluding that falling asleep while driving and causing the deaths of two people constitutes negligence. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.