Do Not Resuscitate Order is Not a Sufficient Superseding Event to Relieve Vehicular Homicide Defendant of Culpability.

State v. Smith, Minn.Ct.App., 9/4/2012.  A jury convicted Mr. Smith of criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation.  Mr. Smith, driving drunk, collided with another car in which a ninety-three year old was a passenger.  As a result of her injuries she came down with pneumonia, which required intubation to breathe.  However, her no not resuscitate order prevented doctors from ordering the intubation procedure and she died. 

Mr. Smith argued that the no not resuscitate order was a superseding event rendered the evidence of the collision insufficient to prove that he caused the death of the passenger.  The court of appeals rejects this argument and affirms the conviction.  Evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Smith caused the death because he caused the collision which was a substantial factor in the death.  He also argued that the do not resuscitate order acted as an intervening, superseding cause, that it was an “intervention of an efficient independent force in which [Smith] did not participate or which he could not reasonably have foreseen.  An intervening cause must satisfy these four conditions:

1) Its harmful effects must have occurred after the original negligence; 2) it must not have been brought about by the original negligence; 3) it must have actively worked to bring about a result which would not otherwise have followed from the original negligence; and 4) it must not have been reasonably foreseeable by the original wrongdoer.

The court of appeals concludes that Mr. Smith cannot satisfy the last condition, that it is foreseeable that this ninety-three year old would prefer death over a medical intervention that might still leave her with a poor quality of life.