What is the test for determining restitution in a motor vehicle accident case?

When calculating the amount of restitution, the court must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole.' (People v. Mearns (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 493, 498.) The amount of restitution must have a factual and rational basis.' (Id. at p. 499.) We review a restitution order for an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 498.) A victim's restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. (Id. at p. 500.) When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court.' (Ibid.)

Defendant first contends that he could not be ordered to pay for the cost of totaling the victim's vehicle, because he was neither charged nor convicted of totaling [the victim's] vehicle. But section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3) provides that [t]o the extent possible, the restitution order... shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant's criminal conduct. Here, the damage to the victim's vehicle was a direct result of defendant's criminal conduct of driving under the influence and causing an accident in which the victim was injured and the victim's car was damaged. Thus, the trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered defendant to pay for the cost of the damage to the victim's vehicle sustained in the accident he caused. (See People v. Holmberg (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1321 [tort principles of causation apply to victim restitution claims in criminal cases].)