State v. Baker
1977 Kan. App. LEXIS 196, 571 P.2d 65, 1 Kan. App. 2d 568 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A malfunction of a non-essential, driver-activated mechanical device, such as cruise control, is not a valid defense to a strict liability traffic offense because the driver voluntarily assumes operation of the vehicle and remains responsible for its control.
Facts:
- The defendant was operating his motor vehicle with the cruise control engaged.
- The defendant's cruise control device stuck in the 'accelerate' position.
- The malfunction caused the car to accelerate to a speed of seventy-seven miles per hour in a fifty-five miles per hour zone.
- The defendant attempted to deactivate the cruise control by hitting the off button, the coast button, and tapping the brakes, but these actions were not immediately successful.
- Subsequent to the incident, the defendant had the defective cruise control repaired.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a trial court with driving seventy-seven miles per hour in a fifty-five miles per hour zone.
- Prior to trial, the state filed a motion in limine to suppress evidence of the defendant's malfunctioning cruise control.
- The trial court sustained the state's motion, precluding the defendant from presenting this evidence as a defense.
- Following a bench trial where the defendant presented no evidence, the court found him guilty.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of a $10 fine and costs but suspended it pending the defendant's appeal to this court.
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 a mechanical malfunction of a vehicle's cruise control, which causes the vehicle to exceed the speed limit against the driver's wishes, constitute a valid defense of an involuntary act to a strict liability speeding charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Spencer, J.
No. A mechanical malfunction of a vehicle's cruise control does not constitute a valid defense of an involuntary act to a strict liability speeding charge. The court reasoned that speeding is a strict liability offense under Kansas law, meaning intent is not an element of the crime. While a truly involuntary act could be a defense, the court held that the defendant's act of driving the car and engaging the cruise control was voluntary. The court distinguished the failure of a non-essential convenience device like cruise control, to which the driver voluntarily delegates partial control, from an unforeseen failure of an essential component like brakes or the throttle. By choosing to use the cruise control, the driver assumes responsibility for its performance and remains the agent in control of the vehicle, as evidenced by his ability to eventually bring the car to a stop. Public safety requires that a motorist's obligation to obey speed limits cannot be avoided by delegating control to a mechanical device.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'involuntary act' defense for strict liability offenses involving vehicle operation. It establishes a critical distinction between the failure of essential vehicle components (e.g., brakes), which might support a defense, and the malfunction of non-essential, driver-activated systems (e.g., cruise control), which does not. The ruling reinforces the principle that a driver cannot delegate their ultimate legal responsibility for a vehicle's actions to an automated system. This precedent has increasing relevance in the modern era of advanced driver-assistance systems, suggesting that malfunctions in such technology are unlikely to absolve a driver of liability for traffic violations.
