State v. Gutierrez-Medina

Comparative fault is not available as a defense for conduct involving "culpability beyond gross negligence." Johnson v. Tilden, 278 Or 11, 17, 562 P2d 1188 (1977); Cook v. Kinzua Pine Mills Co. et al, 207 Or 34, 42, 293 P2d 717 (1956).

Defendant struck Victim with his car and was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants and third-degree assault. Defendant appealed the lower courts’ order that Defendant covers the entirety of the Victim’s resulting economic damages. Defendant assigned error to a judgment that he was not entitled to reduce his restitution obligation under the doctrine of comparative fault. On appeal, Defendant argued the legislature intended the civil doctrine of comparative fault to apply to economic damages in criminal cases. However, comparative fault is not available as a defense for conduct involving "culpability beyond gross negligence." Johnson v. Tilden, 278 Or 11, 17, 562 P2d 1188 (1977) (comparative fault is only a defense where contributory negligence is a defense); Cook v. Kinzua Pine Mills Co. et al, 207 Or 34, 42, 293 P2d 717 (1956) (contributory negligence is not a defense where a defendant’s culpability is more than gross negligence). While the Court agreed with Defendant’s assertion, the Court reasoned that comparative fault doctrine was unavailable as a defense in his case. Defendant was convicted for third-degree assault, a crime involving culpability beyond gross negligence.

Affirmed.