In California, driving after insufficient rest, leading to a microsleep episode, is considered negligence per se in personal injury cases. This means that if a driver causes an accident due to fatigue-induced microsleep, they are presumed legally negligent, making them liable for resulting damages.
🛑 Legal Framework
California Evidence Code § 669 establishes that a person is presumed negligent if:
- They violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity;
- The violation proximately caused injury or death;
- The injury resulted from an occurrence the statute was designed to prevent;
- The injured person was within the class the statute aimed to protect.
Although there’s no specific Vehicle Code addressing drowsy driving, courts have applied this framework to cases involving fatigue-related accidents.
⚖️ Legal Precedents
- Lynn v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc.: A driver who had worked extended hours and fell asleep at the wheel, causing a fatal accident, was found negligent due to the foreseeable risk of fatigue-related incidents.
- Traxler v. Thompson: The court held that a driver who continued driving despite being aware of their drowsiness could be found grossly negligent.
🧠 Microsleep and Its Implications
Microsleep episodes, brief periods where a driver falls asleep for a fraction of a second, can lead to catastrophic accidents. These episodes are often undetectable unless there are clear indicators, such as:
- Yawning or frequent blinking;
- Difficulty remembering recent driving;
- Missing exits or signs;
- Drifting out of lanes.
While these signs can suggest fatigue, proving that a microsleep caused an accident requires substantial evidence.
🧾 Proving Liability in Personal Injury Cases
To establish liability in a drowsy driving accident:
- Duty of Care: The driver owed a duty to operate their vehicle safely.
- Breach: Driving while fatigued constitutes a breach of that duty.
- Causation: The fatigue directly led to the accident.
- Damages: The accident resulted in actual damages (medical expenses, lost wages, etc.).
While there’s no direct test for fatigue like alcohol impairment, evidence such as the driver’s admission, witness statements, or accident reconstruction can support claims of negligence.
🛡️ Comparative Fault Considerations
California follows a pure comparative negligence rule, meaning a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are partially at fault. For instance, if a driver is 90% at fault for an accident due to drowsy driving, and the plaintiff is 10% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 90% of their damages.
📌 Conclusion
Driving after insufficient rest, leading to a microsleep episode, is a serious offense in California. Victims of such accidents can pursue claims based on negligence per se, leveraging the presumption of negligence to establish liability.Given the complexities involved, consulting with a personal injury attorney experienced in drowsy driving cases is advisable to navigate the legal process effectively.
Law Offices of James R. Dickinson – 909-848-8448
How To Schedule A Consultation:
Please call us at 909-848-8448 to schedule a free consultation/case evaluation or complete the form immediately below. [Please note certain formalities must be completed to retain the Law Offices of James R. Dickinson, such as the signing of a legal fee agreement [see “Disclaimers”]].