I was not at fault in an accident & was hurt. I had someone take me to the ER. They took urine, but did not tell me why. They said my injuries were common and may go away in a few weeks. They did not do xrays or anything. I was prescribed a pain killer, anti inflammatory and muscle relaxer. The pain has not gotten better and I am wondering if I seek legal help and there was marijuana in my system, can this be used against me, even though I was not at fault?
I was not under the influence of anything at the time of the accident.
It is possible but it really depends on the facts of your case. If the other side wants to allege that you were somehow at fault and caused the accident then they may try to use this as evidence. On the other hand, if the issue is not who is at fault then it likely would not really matter. As always, the specific facts matter.
I suggest you contact an attorney right away to pursue a personal injury claim. There are time limits that can prevent you from recovering on your claim if you wait too long. Your attorney will be able to assess the relevance of any marijuana found in your system.
In what capacity? Personal injury claim? Criminal defense? If you are injured, post no further and contact qualified counsel. If you were issues a ticket, post no further and contact qualified counsel. Good luck.
If you were absolutely not at fault like stopped at a red light and rear-ended by the other vehicle, then the fact of having marijuana in your system should not prevent you from pursuing an injury claim.
You should contact a local personal injury attorney to discuss follow up care and how to file your claim against the other insurance company.
The admissibility into evidence of the fact of marijuana in your system will probably depend on the amount. Under Florida law, the exist of “merely a trace” of illegal drugs in a litigant’s bloodstream following an accident or alleged crime is inadmissible. In State v. McClain. 508 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the Fourth District affirmed the exclusion of testimony from a chemist in the Broward County Medical Examiner’s office who found traces of cocaine in defendant’s blood following a motor vehicle accident, which amount of cocaine was “below a recordable level.” Id. at 1260. According to the expert, “[i]t was not possible to tell within a tolerance of 24 hours when the cocaine was ingested, or whether its presence affected the person’s manner of driving.” Id. The Fourth District affirmed a trial court’s finding that “when the effect of such an amount could not be stated and when there was no drug charge, [the only function such evidence would serve] was that of showing bad character.” Id.
In West v. State, 553 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the appellant was involved in an accident and was convicted of DUI manslaughter and other charges. On appeal, the Fourth District reversed his conviction for DUI manslaughter, holding as follows:
We agree with West’s assertion that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence that he had a trace of Valium in his blood. Although the state elected only to charge and prosecute West on alcohol-based DUI manslaughter, the State, over defense objection, introduced evidence that West was driving under the influence of alcohol as well as a trace amount of Valium. Since the expert testimony was that the Valium had no measurable effect on West’s driving, the evidence concerning Valium had no probable value or relevance to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol and it was unfairly prejudicial. Thus, it should have been excluded.
Id. at 255.
Another case on point is Estrich v. State, 995 So. 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), in which the court reversed the trial court’s ruling allowing into evidence an analysis of the defendant’s blood which “showed the presence of 39 nanograms of marijuana metabolite Delta 9 Carboxy THC and 139 nanogram of Alprazolam, the generic form of Xanax.” Id. at 615. Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence to be introduced, the court held “that the probative value of the marijuana metabolite in the defendant’s blood was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” because there was no expert testimony that the presence of the illegal substance in the defendant’s body impaired his ability to drive at the time of the subject crash. Id. at 617.
