|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Santa Clara County prosecutors are dropping a manslaughter case against the driver involved in a 2015 accident in Mountain View that killed a woman walking across El Monte Road.
On Aug. 16, a county Superior Court judge approved a motion by the district attorney’s office to dismiss the case against Glenn Kawaguchi, the Los Altos resident involved in the accident. There was insufficient evidence showing that Kawaguchi was at fault in the crash, said Deputy District Attorney Marisa Landin, the prosecutor on the case.
“We looked closely at the intersection with regard to the light that was there at the time of the collision,” she said. “We determined that we couldn’t prove the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The accident occurred on Oct. 22, 2015 at El Monte Road near the intersection of Marich Way. The victim, 54-year-old Michelle Montalvo of Los Altos, was hit by Kawaguchi’s SUV while crossing the street in a marked crosswalk. At the time, Montalvo was walking just a few steps behind her sister Delia Moyles.
In his testimony at the scene, Kawaguchi said he couldn’t see Montalvo until it was too late. The accident occurred before the sun had risen and Montalvo was reportedly wearing dark clothing. While drivers must yield to people crossing the street, pedestrians are still legally responsible for exercising caution when using a crosswalk, attorneys for Kawaguchi pointed out.
A blood test showed that Kawaguchi was not under the effects of alcohol or drugs, and there was no evidence to show he was distracted with his phone while driving. Police officers who reviewed a video of the crash also reported that Kawaguchi did not appear to be speeding at the time.
Nevertheless, officers concluded that Kawaguchi could bear responsibility for the crash, and prosecutors moved forward with filing a vehicular manslaughter case against him.
As the case progressed, Landin said her office commissioned an accident reconstructionist to determine how the environmental factors at the intersection played into the crash. Basically, the ambient lighting at that time of day and how that would affect a driver’s response time stuck out in the analysis as problematic, she said.
Following the crash, city officials have brought forward a series of safety upgrades to the El Monte intersection, including repainting crosswalks and adding streetlights to improve visibility.
Moyles, the sister of the crash victim, described it as disappointing that the criminal trial fell apart, but she credited the district attorney’s office for working hard on the case. She said that the city needed to work further on public safety at that location.
“The most important thing is that my sister Michelle’s death brought and continues to bring awareness for everyone to slow down and pay extra attention,” she wrote in an email. “It’s important that the physical improvements happen urgently before someone else gets hurt or killed again.
Clearly, there was a major problem with this intersection if a driver obeying the speed limit could not see a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk. RIP to this victim. I am glad that the city has at least stepped up and improved the street lighting. Years ago, the city reduced street light brightness to save electricity costs, but that is no longer an issue with modern high-efficiency LED lights. Safety first.
This was a collision, not an accident. Accident implies an act of God beyond any person’s control. While neither party or the city likely had the intention to collide, their behaviors ended up causing the collision. Different behavior would have avoided the collision. Please avoid the word accident when it is a collision caused by behaviors of the people and design of the street.
This is outrageous. I drive that route almost daily and you cannot convince me that a careful and alert driver fails to see two(2) people a few feet apart in the same crosswalk, unless that driver was looking at his cell phone or otherwise negligent. I wonder who was paid off?
I hope the victim’s family DESTROYS the perp in civil court. Beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to prove, but the “preponderance of the evidence” in civil court should be simple.
This is outrageous. I live not far from that place. Even after the improvement, I was almost hit (I was wearing not dark clothing) by another SUV not far from that memorial, there was a young couple who was driving at high-speed and with loud music.
Wow, 2 commenters are ready to pull out the pitchforks for a driver who accidentally killed a pedestrian. Accidents happen, people. Cars are inherently dangerous, visibility often sucks in the very early morning, all sorts of things happen. Who among us hasn’t made a mistake driving? Most of us are just lucky that no pedestrians were in the way when we made our mistakes.
Self-driving cars can’t come fast enough. If everyone was in one Ms. Montalvo would probably still be alive, as would most of the tens of thousands of other pedestrians and drivers killed each year in the holocaust known as “driving.”
It’s the drivers responsibility to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. If the pedestrians are killed in this matter, how can you hold the driver blameless? This would still be in the courts if the driver was Hispanic and the pedestrian was an affluent Los Altos resident. No question about that.
It takes two. Sorry but both the driver and the pedestrian are at fault. The pedestrian should look both ways before crossing the street. Never assume the right of way. We are taught this as children. Too many times I see a pedestrian who walks into a crosswalk without even looking. They assume they have the right of way and no one would dare hit them. What were these pedestrians doing that they didn’t see a vehicle barreling towards them?
Fine reality check. Its both their fault and should share punishment. The pedestrian died, so the driver should die too. Oh, you mean that it’s really all the pedestrians fault.
Though it is tragic that a person died, it is disturbing that so many people who WEREN’T THERE think that they have the knowledge to prosecute this case by messages. I can’t imagine why people are so quick to blame a sober driver who was obeying the speed limit and was not on his phone.
Does the victim get a pass simply because she died? By extension, are drivers who die in car crashes that they cause not responsible for those crashes because they died? When did personal responsibility go so far out of fashion that anything bad that occurs has to be the fault of another person?
I have driven through that same intersection hundreds of times and under many different conditions. Though it is fine in broad daylight, there is inadequate light in the area to see clearly at dusk, dawn or night if a person crossing the street is wearing dark clothing. It is even worse when it rains. It is a terrible place to cross a street. I would never cross there on foot. My life is well worth walking to the corner and crossing at the light only a short distance away.
Should the driver have been more cautious? Yes. Should the woman crossing the street have been wearing clothing that would make her more visible? Also yes. Why, then, is only the driver to blame?
I find it interesting that people here are assuming that the driver was distracted. Why are we not asking if the victim was distracted? I have seen no information regarding if she was talking on a phone. Was she chatting with her sister and not paying attention? Why were they crossing when a car was so close? Is anyone going to suggest that pedestrians never step off the curb without looking for oncoming cars?
It is sad that a person died and we should take measures to make the area safer. That said, I refuse to demonize the driver of the car. His is not the only behavior in question here.
I used to go through that intersection on my way to work every morning. It’s a terribly dangerous intersection and you have to be doubly cautious especially in low light. It’s terrible because first there is a curve, then you come around the curve and naturally look at the light that’s very close ahead. You do not expect 2 crosswalks and it is very hard to see if a pedestrian is starting to cross because for one thing they sort of come out from behind a bush in the median. It is really not obvious, and you wouldn’t expect a pedestrian at 6am anyway. Add to it that the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing and must not have exercised adequate caution before crossing the street. IIRC the original article referred to a toxicology report showing she had drugs or alcohol in her system (I don’t know if that’s true but I do think that was mentioned early on in the case). After the accident happened a lot of us drive more carefully in that area because normal levels of attention, especially in the dark, are not adequate. There is more the city could do to improve the safety of that intersection, and that’s what we should be focused on here, rather than vilifying the driver. One of these comments suggested if she died, he should too and there are lots of other unforgiving comments. Wow. The intersection is dangerous and this could have happened to any other driver paying normal attention. Could this never happen to you?
@psr, @Sad,
How about we hold the people operating multi-ton machines with the ability to kill a person to a higher standard than a person walking in a crosswalk?
Especially since the person operating the multi-ton machine, you know, actually killed a person walking in a crosswalk.
I found this article from 2015 that reports reviews of the surveillance video to be most informative about the incident.
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/sections/news/199-city-affairs/52619-
@ crumbs: Thanks for the web link, which, as you suggest, provides relevant missing details.
Briefly I am an officer for an agency that was involved in the review of this case. Unfortunately I cannot divulge many details however my conscience will not allow me to stand by and not state the truth. 1st Montalvo tested @ 510 ng/ml by the coroner.@ that level anyone would have had signicantly impaired the perception & judgement. My agency reviewed the Video numerous times & at no point did we observe any pause by either sister for the Prius who both came extremely close to being struck and did not even react. This is contrary to the MVPD stmt. We calculated that the driver needed 75 ft to even see the pedestrians and another minimum 125 ft to stop. Based upon the conditions and the dark clothing we were able to conclude that neither the Prius or Suburban could have avoided this unfortunate outcome. We further concluded that both Moyles and Montalvo reacted irresponsible. We also observed that Moyles did not run but walked to her Sister and just stood on the street failing to provide any aid. The MVPD report was extremely incomplete and inaccurate. Why this occurred is unknown. My concern is that this must have cost a fortune to defend. What about the other 99 percent that are not in a position to afford the cost of defending themselves. It appears there are two systems of justice for the small % of the haves versus the other 99%.
Continued
I failed to mention that the drug Montalvo tested positive for was methamphetamine a highly illegal and extremely dangerous narcotic. It should also be mentioned that generally at 600 ng/ml people die, so Montalvo must have been a long time abuser to be able to tolerate that level. Mention has been made of pedestrian rights in the crosswalk. Yes the primary responsibility falls on the driver, however under 21950b of the CVC this does not relieve a pedestrian while in a crosswalk or not from using due care for their safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Given the facts that we were unable to determine that either driver violated 21950a of the CVC, we were unable to assess fault against the driver. This is a tragedy that Montalvo died and my condolences to the family. Yes the X walk should be improved, yes both drivers and pedestrians should be more careful, yes the MVPD and the Santa Clara DA should have done a more thorough job. Yet the biggest tragedy of all is drugs cost a life!
The crosswalks have also been lined with bumpy reflectors so anyone going through them
is reminded that they are crosswalks. There are signs that point down to the crosswalks now, and the crosswalk paint is much darker and more prominent. The lighting was not the only issue.
Some crosswalks do require that the party using them pay attention. Whenever I use
that crosswalk I stop until I see cars slow down if they are close enough to strike me during my crossing. This is just common sense. Having the right of way doesn’t mean
that you can just step in front of oncoming traffic without looking. This isn’t a signalized intersection with a stop light for the cars. They are supposed to yield to you. Particularly this is true if you are dressed in dark clothing and it is dark out.
I read at the time that the woman killed has meth in her blood. Tt does explain the lack of care in the crossing. It happens to also be true that the crosswalks needed some improvement which they now have. It is still tricky to spot pedestrians in dark clothing though, at dusk or at night, particularly if they are not moving.
Blame the victim – mr.copper . Nice to know you will blame me or my own kids for their own death.
1) It is possible to test positive for meth for any number of reasons:
a) methamphetamine is a prescription drug – Concerta is a methamphetamine.
b) A number of other drugs can create a false positive: Bupropion, Sudafed, amphetamine or methamphetamine.
Labetalol (Trandate) is both an alpha and beta blocker used for blood pressure control, etc. ( https://www.goodrx.com/blog/these-15-medications-can-cause-a-false-positive-on-drug-tests/)
2) It didn’t matter – the driver failed to observe the road far enough ahead. If the lighting conditions are bad, he should have driven slower.
Meth screening with false positives is different from measuring a level
in the blood with a specific test post mortem, waiting days for the results.
It does matter. The walking party didn’t use reasonable care. Stepping off the
curb into the path of an oncoming car is a deliberate act that can be avoided.
Doing so to prove a point that you have the right of way is worse than foolish.
Consider that at that hour with headlights on, the pedestrian KNEW there was
a car about to impact. It may have been suicide.