Commonwealth v. Cathey
645 A.2d 250, 435 Pa. Super. 162, 1994 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2387 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Falling asleep while operating a motor vehicle, in itself, demonstrates a 'careless disregard for the safety of persons or property,' sufficient to sustain a conviction for careless driving. Careless driving is a lesser included offense of reckless driving, permitting a conviction for the former even when only the latter is charged.
Facts:
- David Cathey worked two jobs.
- He arrived home from one job between midnight and 1:00 a.m. and decided to stay awake through the night.
- At 6:30 a.m., he drove to his second job.
- At 7:00 p.m. that evening, while returning home from his second job, Cathey fell asleep while driving his vehicle.
- His vehicle crossed over into the oncoming lane of traffic and struck a vehicle operated by Joseph Sirak.
Procedural Posture:
- David Cathey was charged with reckless driving by Officer James Carson.
- Following a summary trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, the trial judge acquitted Cathey of reckless driving.
- The trial judge found Cathey guilty of the 'lesser included offense of careless driving.'
- Cathey (appellant) appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does falling asleep while operating a motor vehicle, which results in an accident, constitute 'careless disregard for the safety of persons or property' sufficient to sustain a conviction for careless driving under Pennsylvania law?
Opinions:
Majority - Cirillo, Judge
Yes. Falling asleep while operating an automobile, in itself, clearly manifests a 'careless disregard for the safety of persons or property' and is sufficient for a careless driving conviction. The court reasoned that sleep does not overcome a person without warning; a driver first experiences drowsiness and has an obligation to stop driving. To continue driving despite being aware of fatigue goes beyond ordinary negligence and demonstrates the 'careless disregard' required by the statute. The court distinguished prior civil cases which held that falling asleep was evidence of ordinary negligence, clarifying that those cases did not preclude a finding of a higher degree of culpability. The court also held that careless driving is a lesser included offense of reckless driving because the mental state for careless driving ('careless disregard') is included within the higher mental state for reckless driving ('willful or wanton disregard').
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle in Pennsylvania that falling asleep at the wheel is not merely a civil tort of negligence but rises to the level of a summary criminal offense. It establishes that the act itself is sufficient proof of the requisite mental state—'careless disregard'—because a driver is presumed to be aware of the onset of drowsiness. This creates a strong deterrent against drowsy driving and simplifies prosecution in such cases. The case also affirms a key procedural point, allowing for convictions on the lesser included offense of careless driving when a defendant is charged with reckless driving, granting courts and prosecutors more flexibility.
