What evidence does the court need to provide to determine whether a defendant acted negligently in a motor vehicle accident case?

^3. Madaule also provided evidence that he veered into the HOT lane to avoid hitting a car that suddenly came to a halt in front of him. This evidence went to whether Madaule was negligent. Madaule is not alleging on appeal that this evidence, if believed, somehow required the court to provide a causation instruction. Madaule's testimony about trying to avoid an accident went to whether he acted negligently, testimony which, if believed by the jury, would have either negated an element of vehicular manslaughter or operated as a defense. In any event, the vehicular manslaughter instructions given to the jury stated that "[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." The jury was also given a separate jury instruction, CALCRIM No. 3404, stating a defendant is not guilty of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence or vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence if he acted accidentally. Had the jury believed that Madaule veered into the HOT lane to avoid an accident and that an ordinary, careful person would have done the same, the People would not have proven that Madaule acted negligently under the circumstances. Clearly, the jury either did not credit Madaule's testimony that he was facing an accident or did not believe that veering into the HOT lane was what an ordinary, careful person would do under the circumstances.

^4. People v. Dueas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, 1161.