Napa Criminal Attorney | Law Office of Douglas Pharr

An intentional tort is an offense when the person deliberately meant to hurt or damage your property. For example, if some one punches you, purposely runs you over with his or her vehicle, or threatens you. If the person meant to hit or hurt you in some way, it is considered battery. If the person did so merely out of carelessness and did not intend to hurt you, it is negligent tort. The most important legal difference between the two is that in an intentional tort, the victim is entitled to recover an award of punitive damages in addition to all other damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish the person for doing the wrong.

Punitive damages are up to the jury and it varies from as little as $1 to more than $100,000 depending on the case. In cases involving deliberate misconduct by a large corporation, punitive damages can run into the millions.

At the Law Office of Douglas Pharr, we understand the urgency of your legal matter and can provide the legal help you need. Contact a Napa criminal attorney right away to arrange a free consultation and we promise to explain your legal rights and give you the answers you need to know about your case. Call (707) 258-2654 today.

Law Office of Douglas Pharr
1700 Second Street, Suite #333
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 258-2654

Divided-Attention Tests

Despite the praise given to divided-attention field sobriety tests, advocates fail to mention the limitations and unreliability of the tests. For instance, driving a vehicle is a divided-attention task. Motorists are required to process numerouse mental impressions while physically operating the accelerator, brake or clutch. In other words, any motorist stopped for a faulty taillight, and not erratic driving, has properly performed a divided-attention activity that is more rigorous than the standardized field sobriety tests.

Subjective Tests

Another significant error of the field sobriety tests is lack of objectivity. Test results are based upon the officer’s biased observations. The mere fact that an officer is having a motorist perform field sobriety test is an indication that the officer believes the driver is impaired. This presumption of intoxication will consciously or subconsciously distort the officer’s perception of the motorist’s test performance. Soon, normal behavior is documented as evidence of intoxication for example, a motorist was asked to perform a non-standardized field sobriety test, counting backwards from 110 to 83. He recited the numbers perfectly and kept counting backwards to prove he was fully cognizant; however the officer interpreted this is noncompliance as evidence of intoxication because the motorist did not follow directions by stopping at 83.

Law Office of Douglas Pharr
1700 Second Street, Suite #333
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 258-2654

Law Office of Douglas Pharr – Blog

Located in Napa, attorneys at the Law Office of Douglas Pharr are Experienced, Knowledgeable and have Proven results in Criminal Defense and Bankruptcy Law.

Category Archives: Napa Criminal Attorney

Intentional Torts

Field Sobriety Tests