State v. Rock
571 So. 2d 908, 1990 WL 210443 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver's conduct of traveling entirely within the oncoming lane of traffic on a clearly marked, two-lane bridge constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care, which is sufficient evidence of criminal negligence to support a conviction for negligent homicide.
Facts:
- On February 7, 1989, the Rogers' family was driving their Dodge Caravan east in the eastbound lane on the Lapalco Bayou Segnette Bridge in Westwego, Louisiana.
- The bridge is a steep, two-lane roadway divided by double yellow, no-passing lines and marked with 'Do Not Pass' signs.
- Earl Rock, driving an Oldsmobile Cutlass, came over the top of the bridge traveling in the center of the two lanes.
- Rock's vehicle then crashed head-on into the Rogers' Caravan while entirely within the eastbound (oncoming) lane of traffic.
- The collision killed Carrie Rogers and her eleven-year-old son, Jason Rogers.
- An eyewitness testified to seeing Rock's car centered between the two lanes at the top of the bridge.
- Rock testified that he sneezed twice before the accident and could not recall crossing the center line, suggesting the sneeze caused him to enter the other lane.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana prosecuted Earl Rock in a state trial court on two counts of negligent homicide.
- Following a trial, a jury found Earl Rock guilty on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced Rock to five years at hard labor for each count, to be served concurrently, and ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine plus court costs.
- Earl Rock, as appellant, appealed his convictions and sentences to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, an intermediate appellate 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 driver's action of traveling completely within the oncoming lane of traffic on a two-lane bridge, resulting in a fatal head-on collision, constitute sufficient evidence of criminal negligence to support a conviction for negligent homicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Gothard, Judge
Yes, a driver's action of traveling completely within the oncoming lane of traffic on a two-lane bridge, resulting in a fatal head-on collision, constitutes sufficient evidence of criminal negligence. Criminal negligence requires conduct that amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care of a reasonably careful person. Unlike ordinary negligence, such as inadvertently crossing a center line, Rock's actions of traveling entirely in the opposite lane of a clearly marked, two-lane bridge represented a gross disregard for the safety of others. The court distinguished this case from State v. Crawford, where merely crossing the center line was deemed insufficient for criminal negligence. Here, evidence showed Rock was not just over the line but was fully 'traveling in the opposite lane.' This evidence, combined with the dangerous location, allowed a rational jury to find that Rock's conduct was a gross deviation from the standard of care, sufficient to support the negligent homicide convictions.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the line between ordinary negligence and criminal negligence in the context of vehicular homicide. It establishes that the degree and context of a traffic violation are critical; while a momentary lapse like crossing the center line may only be ordinary negligence, operating a vehicle for a sustained period entirely in the opposing lane on a dangerous roadway constitutes a 'gross deviation' from the standard of care. This precedent provides a stronger basis for prosecutors to bring criminal charges in fatal accidents involving more than simple driver error. It signals that courts will uphold jury verdicts that find criminal liability where a driver's actions create an extreme and obvious danger to others.
