Yes, the drunk boater is responsible for his friend's death. The court explained that the drunk boating law says you can be charged with a felony if you're boating drunk and break 'any law' that causes a death. The court decided that 'any law' includes basic safety rules, like the ones against speeding and reckless boating, which Armitage clearly broke. The court also said Armitage's actions caused his friend's death. Even though the friend made the risky choice to swim away, it was a completely understandable, panicked reaction to the scary situation Armitage had put him in. You can't create a life-or-death emergency and then blame the victim for not acting perfectly calm and rational.

Yes, David is guilty of felony drunk boating causing death. I say this because David drove the boat while drunk, too fast, and dangerously. This caused the boat to flip over, which led to Peter drowning. David broke boating safety laws and rules by driving recklessly and at an unsafe speed. When we talk about 'laws' in this case, we mean both the official laws and the safety rules made by boating authorities. David argued that Peter's choice to swim to shore was the real cause of his death, but I don't agree. When someone puts another person in danger, like David did to Peter, the endangered person's attempt to escape doesn't change who's responsible. The evidence shows that a drunk boating accident happened and caused Peter's death, even without considering what David said about it later.

Yes, violating state boating safety statutes or regulations satisfies the 'act forbidden by law' element, and No, a victim's foreseeable attempt to escape does not break the chain of proximate causation. To sustain a conviction for felony drunk boating causing death, the prosecution must prove the defendant, while intoxicated, committed an act forbidden by law or neglected a duty imposed by law which proximately caused the death. The court held that the term 'law' is not limited to the Harbors and Navigation Code itself but also includes administrative safety regulations, which have the force of law. Armitage's conduct of operating the boat at an unsafe speed and in a reckless manner violated both a state regulation (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 6615) and a statute (Harb. & Nav. Code, § 655, subd. (a)), satisfying this element. Regarding causation, the court affirmed that a victim's contributory negligence is not a defense. For an intervening act to absolve the defendant of liability, it must be an unforeseeable 'superseding cause.' The victim’s panicked decision to swim for shore was a normal and reasonably foreseeable reaction to the life-threatening peril created by Armitage's drunk and reckless boating; therefore, it did not break the causal chain.

Yes. I affirm the conviction for felony drunk boating causing death. The evidence establishes that Armitage operated his boat while intoxicated, at an unsafe speed, and in a reckless manner, which led to the capsizing of the boat and the subsequent drowning of Maskovich. This conduct violates both Harbors and Navigation Code section 655, subdivision (a), which prohibits reckless or negligent boating, and California Administrative Code, title 14, section 6615, which requires vessels to be operated at a safe speed. These violations constitute acts forbidden by law or neglect of duties imposed by law under the felony drunk boating statute. The term 'law' in this context includes not only statutory provisions but also administrative regulations related to boating safety. Armitage's argument that Maskovich's decision to swim to shore broke the causal connection is rejected because a victim's predictable effort to escape a peril created by the defendant is not considered a superseding cause in criminal law. The evidence is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crime, as it shows that a drunk boating accident occurred and resulted in Maskovich's death, independent of Armitage's extrajudicial admissions.

People v. Armitage

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot