In Camp v. Oleson, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed a directed verdict in favor of the defendant and ordered a new trial, ruling that sufficient evidence existed to allow a jury to consider whether the driver’s intoxication or willful and wanton conduct caused the crash. The case involved a passenger injured while riding in a car operated by a social acquaintance, raising questions under Colorado’s former guest statute.
On the night of the incident, Thomas C. Camp went to Hilda’s Bar to meet a friend. While there, he accepted an invitation from defendant Louis F. Oleson and a barmaid to accompany them on a short trip to the Broadway Estates Lounge. Camp and Oleson remained at the lounge for about two and a half hours, after which they began the return trip to Hilda’s Bar around 11:15 p.m.
According to Oleson’s account, while driving north on Broadway, another car allegedly ran a stop sign and turned in front of him. He claimed he swerved left, lost his glasses, then pulled back to the right and struck a telephone pole. Camp was injured in the crash.
Oleson admitted to consuming seven beers during the afternoon and evening, three of which were at the Broadway Estates Lounge. Witnesses described his behavior as obnoxious, and an officer who interviewed him at the hospital approximately 30 minutes after the accident reported a strong odor of alcohol on Oleson’s breath.
Camp filed suit alleging that the accident resulted from Oleson’s intoxication and willful and wanton negligence. The trial court, however, granted a directed verdict in Oleson’s favor at the close of the plaintiff’s case, citing the Colorado guest statute, which limited liability unless the driver acted with willful and wanton disregard or while intoxicated.
Under C.R.S.1963, 13-9-1, a driver could only be held liable to a guest passenger if the injury resulted from intoxication or conduct that demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. Willful and wanton conduct was defined by the court as behavior where the driver is conscious of their misconduct and aware that it will probably result in injury but proceeds regardless. Similarly, intoxication need not render the driver incapacitated but must impair judgment to a degree that affects cautious driving.
The appellate court held that the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury. Key elements supporting this conclusion included:
Oleson’s admission of drinking seven beers, with corroborating testimony about his demeanor.
The timing and circumstances of the crash, including his failure to apply the brakes and the force of the impact, which broke a telephone pole and propelled the car 62 feet further with one wheel locked.
The officer’s observation of a strong odor of alcohol shortly after the accident.
The court emphasized that it was improper for the trial court to remove these factual questions from jury consideration. The directed verdict was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on all issues.
Injuries resulting from impaired or reckless driving may be subject to specific legal standards depending on state statutes and passenger status. Our attorneys at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC help clients understand their rights and pursue claims for compensation after serious motor vehicle collisions.