People v. Dawson

California Court of Appeal
91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841, 172 Cal.App.4th 1073, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 475 (2009)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

In criminal law, an independent intervening act by a victim does not constitute a superseding cause that relieves the defendant of liability if the general type of harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent conduct.

Facts:

Defendant Dawson owned and operated a boat on Lake Sonoma while having a blood-alcohol content of roughly 0.14 percent.
The victim, Spier, was a passenger on the boat who was extremely intoxicated, belligerent, and obsessively insisting on water skiing despite previous failed attempts.
Throughout the afternoon, Spier was uncooperative with safety instructions and agitated.
Dawson took the helm to reposition the boat near the shore.
The boat displayed specific warning stickers advising against operating the engine while anyone was on the swim platform due to the danger of the propeller.
As Dawson put the boat into reverse to move away from the shore, Spier entered the water at the rear of the boat.
Spier was immediately struck by the boat's propeller and died instantly.

Procedural Posture:

The prosecution filed a complaint charging the defendant with felony vessel manslaughter and unlawful operation of a vessel causing injury.
At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate dismissed the felony charges, ruling that the defendant did not legally cause the death.
The prosecution filed a motion in the Superior Court to reinstate the charges pursuant to Penal Code section 871.5.
The Superior Court denied the motion, ruling that it was bound by the magistrate's decision as a factual finding.
The People (prosecution) appealed the denial of the reinstatement motion to the Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the magistrate err as a matter of law in dismissing manslaughter charges against an intoxicated boat operator on the grounds that the intoxicated victim's act of jumping into the water was an unforeseeable superseding cause?

Opinions:

Majority - Richman

Yes. The court reversed the lower court's refusal to reinstate charges, holding that the victim's conduct was not a superseding cause that absolved the defendant of liability. The court first determined that the magistrate's dismissal was a legal conclusion based on undisputed facts, not a factual finding, permitting de novo review. Applying the principles of proximate cause, which are the same in criminal and tort law, the court reasoned that a defendant remains liable if the risk of harm was foreseeable. While the magistrate focused on the victim's act of jumping as an intervening cause, the appellate court emphasized that the 'type of harm'—injury by a propeller—was foreseeable given that the defendant was operating the boat while intoxicated with an uncooperative, drunk passenger near the stern. As the 'captain of the ship,' the defendant bore responsibility for the safety of those on board, making the victim's entry into the water a foreseeable risk rather than a superseding cause.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the standard of proximate cause in California criminal negligence cases, specifically regarding intervening acts by victims. It reinforces the principle that criminal liability is not negated by a victim's foolish or voluntary actions (like jumping off a boat) if the defendant created a situation where such a risk was reasonably foreseeable. The decision emphasizes the 'scope of risk' analysis over the precise manner of the accident. It also serves as a strong warning to boat operators regarding their 'captain of the ship' liability for intoxicated passengers.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Dawson (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"