Eastern District splits over exclusion of pot use from crash trial

A panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District split on whether or not a jury should have heard evidence that a driver was impaired by marijuana use at the time of the crash that killed her son.

The court on March 26 affirmed a verdict of more than $20 million for the family of Robert C. Schultz Jr. In 2019 he was a passenger in his mother’s car when she fishtailed on Interstate 70 near Wentzville during an early morning rain. They hit the center median, struck another vehicle and came to a stop facing sideways on the highway, where an 18-wheel truck struck them.

The mother, Carrie S. Schultz, and the decedent’s father, Robert C. Schultz Sr., brought a wrongful death claim against the truck’s driver, Lennis Beck, and his employer, Great Plains Trucking. A St. Charles County jury sided with the Schultzes, awarding $10 million in compensatory damages and $10.025 million in aggravating circumstances damages against truck company and the driver. It was the 12^th largest plaintiffs’ win of 2022, as tracked by Missouri Lawyers Media.

At trial, plaintiffs argued that Beck was driving too fast in dark, wet conditions through a blind curve in the road. The defendants, however, unsuccessfully sought to argue that Carrie Schultz was a daily marijuana user and that she’d smoked marijuana resin about an hour before the accident.

Judge Robert M. Clayton III, writing for the Eastern District, affirmed the trial judge’s decision to exclude the evidence. Although the mother had approximately 3.5 nanograms per milliliter of THC in her system following the crash, the defense’s expert couldn’t say with certainty if she was impaired or whether her THC level was due to the residual effect of daily use. There was also no other evidence of impairment, such as erratic driving.

“Moreover,” Clayton added, “this Court can find no Missouri case authorizing a finding of impairment based only upon a person’s regular daily usage of marijuana.”

Judge Philip M. Hess concurred. But Judge Cristian M. Stevens argued in a dissent that the possibility that Schultz was impaired was “highly relevant,” particularly now that marijuana use is a right under the Missouri Constitution.

“There is a reasonable probability that the jury would have assessed the case differently if presented with evidence of Schultz’s chronic marijuana use as late as within one hour before driving her son in her car and losing control of the car, resulting in the horrendous crash at issue here,” he wrote.

Stevens agreed that the judge correctly excluded the evidence of Schultz’s blood THC levels, as there is no scientific consensus on what level constitutes impairment and Missouri law doesn’t set a legal limit as it does with blood alcohol levels.

But, Stevens argued, the defense expert also opined that, as a daily user, Schultz would always have some level of impairment, even if she hadn’t smoked that morning — and while it wasn’t clear how much if any of the THC in her system came from the resin, “a jury reasonably could draw the inference that chronic marijuana users smoke marijuana resin for a reason,” he wrote.

The mother was represented at trial by Schlapprizzi Attorneys at Law, while the father was separately represented by Finney Injury Law. The defense also argued that it was improper for the trial judge to have allowed the two St. Louis law firms to try portions of the case jointly, with both sets of lawyers making opening statements and cross-examining witnesses. The majority denied the argument, noting that the couple was divorced, the mother was involved in the crash while the father was not and that “each made a personal and financial decision to hire separate counsel in this case.”

The case is Schultz v. Great Plains Trucking Inc., ED111241.