Opinion ID: 1160300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Instruction as to the presumption of intoxication:

Text: The trial court, over Combined's objection, instructed the jury that, pursuant to § 31-5-233(b), W.S. 1977 [§ 31-129(b), W.S. 1957, 1975 Cum.Supp.]: If there was at that time [while driving a vehicle] 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood, it shall be presumed that the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, to a degree which renders him incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle. The court instructed that it was unlawful for a person to drive while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to a degree rendering him incapable of driving safely, quoting § 31-129(a), W.S. 1957, 1975 Cum. Supp. Instruction 19 further provided: Violation of a Statute is evidence of negligence. If you determine that a party violated a Statute on the occasion in question, then you may consider that fact, together with all the other facts and circumstances in evidence, in determining whether or not the party was negligent at the time of the occurrence. Combined urged below, and now on appeal, that the statutory presumption of intoxication was not applicable to a civil action for damages. A clear majority of the courts who have considered this question have agreed with Combined's position, holding that such an instruction is an improper comment on the evidence. See, Construction and application of statutes creating presumption or other inference of intoxication. 16 A.L.R.3d 748, 757-758 (and cases cited therein). Contra, Interstate Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Whitlock, 112 Ga. App. 212, 144 S.E.2d 532. A reading of our statute, § 31-129(b), supra, discloses that the presumptions contained therein are applicable only upon the trial of any criminal action or proceeding. We hold the trial court committed error in giving this instruction, leaving only a question as to whether Combined was prejudiced thereby.