Home Table of Contents

WPI 16.04.01 Under the Influence of Alcohol or Any Drug—Driving a Motor Vehicle

6 WAPRAC WPI 16.04.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 16.04.01 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part II. Negligence—Risk—Misconduct—Proximate Cause
Chapter 16. Defenses
WPI 16.04.01 Under the Influence of Alcohol or Any Drug—Driving a Motor Vehicle
A driver is under the influence of [alcohol] [,] [marijuana] [or] [any drug] if, as a result of using [alcohol] [,] [marijuana] [or] [any drug], the person's ability to drive a motor vehicle is lessened in any appreciable degree.
NOTE ON USE
Use with WPI 16.03 (Intoxication of Person Injured or Killed—Defense) and WPI 21.09 (Burden of Proof on the Issues—Intoxication Defense) if the intoxication of the person injured or killed is raised as a defense pursuant to RCW 5.40.060 and either that person or the defendant was allegedly under the influence while driving a motor vehicle.
Use bracketed “marijuana” if the court determines that it should be used rather than or in addition to “any drug.” See Comment to WPI 16.03 (Intoxication of Person Injured or Killed—Defense.)
This instruction and WPI 16.05 (Under the Influence of Alcohol—Analysis of Bodily Substance—Intoxication Defense Statute) represent alternative theories for proving a person was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. For a case in which evidence is presented under each theory, then both instructions should be given to the jury with appropriate modification to indicate that the two theories are alternatives.
COMMENT
RCW 5.40.060(1).
The statute provides in part that the standard for determining whether the person injured or killed was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug is the same standard set forth in RCW 46.61.502, the statute on driving while under the influence. Prior to 2013, RCW 46.61.502 provided that a person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a motor vehicle within this state while the person is either under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug or under the combined influence of or affected by any intoxicating liquor and any drug.
Case law interpreting the phase “under the influence” has defined it as meaning “any influence which lessens in any appreciable degree the ability of the accused to handle his automobile.” State v. Lewellyn, 78 Wn.App. 788, 794, 895 P.2d 418 (1995) (quoting State v. Hurd, 5 Wn.2d 308, 315, 105 P.2d 59 (1940)); State v. Hansen, 15 Wn.App. 95, 96, 546 P.2d 1242 (1976). This definition has been adapted for this instruction which is intended to be used in the case of a person injured or killed while driving a motor vehicle.
Experience with WPI 92.10 (Under the Influence Of or Affected by Intoxicating Liquor or Marijuana or Drugs—Definition), the criminal counterpart to this instruction, has shown that the jury may have trouble understanding the word “appreciable.” Therefore, it may be desirable when giving this instruction to further instruct the jury that the word “appreciable” is defined as meaning capable of being perceived or noticed. See W. Statsky, Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary (1985).
If intoxication is alleged in an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the fact that a driver has consumed intoxicating liquor does not automatically justify instructing the jury on the issue of the driver being under the influence. For cases that review evidence of drinking that is not sufficient to take the issue of intoxication to the jury, see: Madill v. Los Angeles Seattle Motor Exp., Inc., 64 Wn.2d 548, 552–53, 392 P.2d 821 (1964) (complete absence of any evidence that driver was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident); White v. Peters, 52 Wn.2d 824, 827, 329 P.2d 471 (1958) (no evidence of conduct or appearance that driver was under the influence of two drinks consumed earlier in the day prior to or at the time of accident).
See the Comment to WPI 12.01 (Voluntary Intoxication) for other cases discussing the sufficiency of evidence to take the issue of driver's intoxication to the jury.
[Current as of September 2018.]
End of Document