How have courts interpreted the doctrine of imminent peril in a collision where an intoxicated driver swerved to avoid a collision?

Defendant relies upon the doctrine of imminent peril to assert that such evidence is insufficient to establish either a violation of the Vehicle Code or general negligence liability: "A person facing a sudden and unexpected emergency situation not caused by that person's own negligence is required only to use the same care and judgment that an ordinarily careful person would use in the same situation, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer." (CALCRIM No. 590; People v.

Page 7

Boulware (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 268, 269-270 [sudden peril defense considered where defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, swerved and caused a collision]; People v. Clark (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 513, 518 [imminent peril instruction appropriate for defense where intoxicated driver's sudden swerve into opposite lane collided with truck].) Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, in addition to driving while under the influence, defendant concurrently committed a separate unlawful act or failed to perform a legal duty.