Photo by Whitehorse Star
Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale and Jessica Frotten
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale and Jessica Frotten
A judge has found a Whitehorse man guilty of impaired driving after a 2009 rollover which paralyzed one friend and seriously injured another.
A judge has found a Whitehorse man guilty of impaired driving after a 2009 rollover which paralyzed one friend and seriously injured another.
On Monday afternoon, Michael Schmidt was found guilty of two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm to Jessica Frotten and Michael Sanderson.
However, the 30-year-old was acquitted of two counts of dangerous driving and two counts of driving with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.08.
On Dec. 14, 2009, Schmidt was driving with Frotten and Sanderson on the way from Whitehorse to Haines Junction when his Honda car rolled on the Alaska Highway near the Takhini River Bridge.
Both passengers were ejected from the car.
Frotten, then 21, suffered a broken back,a torn aorta, broken feet, punctured lungs, several broken ribs and a concussion.
She spent several weeks in a medically-induced coma at an Edmonton hospital and is now paralyzed.
Sanderson, then 29, broke his right shoulder, left leg, multiple ribs and tore the ligaments in his left knee.
Much of last month's trial centred around the amount of alcohol Schmidt had to drink prior to the crash.
He originally admitted to splitting a pitcher of beer with his friends over lunch. He later testified to also having samples of beer at the Yukon Brewery shortly before the crash.
When he was given a breathalyzer test three hours following the rollover, Schmidt's blood alcohol concentration was 0.07. The legal limit is 0.08.
According to Canadian law, if a breathalyzer test is taken within two hours of an alleged offence, those results represent the blood alcohol concentration of a person at the time of the offence.
Since these tests were done outside of that window, both the defence and prosecution presented experts to testify to Schmidt's level at the time of the rollover.
A Crown expert testified that, based on his calculations, Schmidt would have been over the legal limit at the time of driving.
This was contrasted with a defence expert who said Schmidt's last drink at the brewery was too close to the time of the crash to allow for an accurate calculation.
Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale ruled that the defence expert created enough reasonable doubt to acquit Schmidt of the charges of driving while his blood alcohol level was more than 0.08.
The judge still found Schmidt guilty of impaired driving.
"A person who drives while his or her ability is impaired by alcohol is guilty of an offence regardless of whether his ability to drive is greatly or only slightly impaired,” Veale said, citing an Ontario court of appeal case.
The judge found that there were no bumps nor frost heaves of any significance at the site of the crash.
Schmidt had told the RCMP that frost heaves suddenly pulled his car sideways into the ditch.
During the trial, he testified to having the opportunity to turn into the skid and accelerate as he drifted sideways, the judge noted.
The distance from the start of the skid mark on the highway to the resting place of Schmidt's vehicle was approximately 180 metres, according to RCMP testimony.
Schmidt also admitted to driving at 110-113 km/h at the time of the rollover.
The speed limit in the area is 90 km/h
"I have concluded, based on Mr. Schmidt's alcohol consumption, driving speed and reaction to the icy road, that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired at the time of the accident,” Veale said.
Lastly, in order to be found guilty of dangerous driving, Schmidt needed to show a "marked departure” from the standard expected of a reasonable driver, the judge said.
"There is no evidence that Mr. Schmidt markedly or substantially departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent driver,” Veale said.
"He may have been speeding when the road was slippery, but I am not satisfied that this is a marked departure from the norm.”
Schmidt will likely be sentenced in the new year. He is scheduled to appear in court on Dec. 6 to have a date set for sentencing.
The maximum sentence for impaired driving causing bodily harm is 10 years in jail.
"This case is about a motor vehicle accident that permanently paralyzed Jessica Frotten,” the judge said before giving his ruling.
"This case cannot change that catastrophic injury and its impact on a young woman's life.”
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (5)
Up 0 Down 0
Anna Namus on Nov 17, 2011 at 7:34 am
Seems to me as though Mr. Schmidt was cleared of dangerous driving and drunk driving, and instead, was convicted with impaired driving, which has a much more subjective definition.
I don't know how it is in the Yukon, but where I'm from, drivers are only responsible to ensure that passengers under 16 years of age are wearing seat belts.
This certainly is a curious verdict. If Mr. Schmidt is not guilty of dangerous driving, then it begs the question: in what way was he impaired by his consumption of alcohol?
In his own judgement, Justice Veale appears to contradicts himself:
"I have concluded, based on Mr. Schmidt's alcohol consumption, driving speed and reaction to the icy road, that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired at the time of the accident...”
He goes on to say:
"There is no evidence that Mr. Schmidt markedly or substantially departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent driver...”
So, Mr. Schmidt's driving ability was impaired to such a degree that he... drove like a "reasonably prudent driver?"
Up 0 Down 0
River Rat on Nov 17, 2011 at 2:19 am
Had the driver not drank, this whole situation could have been avoided.
Had the driver insisted that all people in the vehicle been strapped in, maybe they would have all escaped injury.
But, it still goes back to the drinking beforehand and the resulting lack of judgment involving speed and road conditions.
Don't Drink and Drive!
Up 0 Down 0
Anna Namus on Nov 16, 2011 at 9:28 am
Had Jessica Frotten the good sense to wear a seat belt, this whole tragedy could have been avoided.
Up 0 Down 0
Miriam Smith on Nov 16, 2011 at 5:17 am
What happened is something none of us want to see - unfortunately the message of Don't Drink and Drive - (even with 2 drinks) is one that people just don't seem or want to hear. The driver has been made accountable for his poor choice, the passengers will also be living with the choice of getting in a vehicle with someone under the influence. In an instant - passenger's, driver's and family's life's forever changed. Given that yet another accident of this nature has occurred recently - the ability to have the strong decision skills to not get into a vehicle with someone who as been drinking - even 2 drinks - is something young and old need to exercise more often. Over the legal limit or under the influence and impaired - is the thrill worth outcomes such as this????
Up 0 Down 0
Allan on Nov 16, 2011 at 1:45 am
He without sin cast the first stone:
If you've ever driven a vehicle after approx. 2 drinks you have no right to judge.
You are lucky, these people were not.