"[V]oluntary intoxication may be a factor to be considered by the trier of fact in determining negligence."
How later courts described this case
- "[V]oluntary intoxication may be a factor to be considered by the trier of fact in determining negligence."
- “[Yjoluntary intoxication may be a factor to be considered by the trier of fact in determining negligence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Donald L. Corbin, Justice, dissenting. I dissent.
The case should have been submitted to the jury for decision. The facts of the appellee’s drinking mixed with a collision with another vehicle he did not know he hit and his collision with a traffic light pole should have been submitted to the jury to resolve whether he was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. One does not have to be intoxicated under a legal definition of 0.10% before having his mental and reaction time slowed down by the drink. See Stephens v. State, 320 Ark. 426 , 898 S.W.2d 435 (1995). When all of this is coupled with rain slicked streets, it would be a proper issue for a jury to draw upon their individual experiences to determine if, under all of these conditions, negligence existed. I would reverse and remand for trial.
Glaze, J., joins in this dissent.