Opinion ID: 2516950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applying this Interpretation of Collision to the Evidence in this Case

Text: The prosecution asserts that there was a collision in this case based on the contact of the bottom of Bayly's truck which normally does not touch the road surfacewith the surface of the parking lot when one side of the truck went over the parking lot edge. The prosecution has neither adduced evidence nor proffered any theory about the severity of impact the truck bottom had with the road surface. No evidence of damage to the truck bottom appears in the record. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that Bayly operate[d] any vehicle . . . in a manner as to cause a collision with . . . other property. HRS § 291-12. The prosecution's interpretation strains credulity in the face of the commonly-understood concept of collision. As the court recognized in the similar circumstances of the Alexander case, [o]ne instinctively withholds assent to the result. 27 Haw. at 331. Unlike a typical collision, there was no contact with a perpendicular object obstructing the course of [the vehicle's] progress. Id. at 328. As Bayly notes, the bottom of a vehicle comes into contact with the road surface in other circumstances that are not commonly understood as collisions, such as when a car bottoms out in a pothole or over a speed bump. In short, Bayly's vehicle was not involved in a collision as a matter of law. Without satisfying the result of conduct element, Bayly cannot be convicted of inattention to driving. As such, it is unnecessary to reach Bayly's argument that the ICA erred in upholding the circuit court's determination the he operated a vehicle without due care.