90-year-old slams car into man’s leg, Morro Bay liquor store

October 31, 2014

ambulanceA 90-year-old Morro Bay woman drove her vehicle into a man’s leg and through the front of a liquor store Thursday afternoon. [Tribune]

Shortly before 1 p.m., the female driver seriously injured a man in his 50s or 60s who was standing near the entrance of Bottle Liquor at 999 Main Street. Police have not yet released the name of the man, who is receiving treatment at a hospital.

After the accident, the man was conscious but not speaking. A witness described his leg as nearly detached.

Morro Bay police have identified the 90-year-old driver as Mary Perry. She was driving a Buick LeSabre and was pulling into a parking spot near the store when she accelerated through the front door.

Bottle Liquor manager Nick Martinez said the victim had just made a purchase, and that Perry is a longtime customer.

The business’s door must be replaced, but no structural damage occurred to the store, Martinez said.

Morro Bay Police Commander Bryan Millard said Perry has been very cooperative, and no criminal charges are pending against her. Police are still investigating the crash.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Very elderly drivers are an easy target compared to the dummies who drive while texting and talking with their cell phones in their hands, and those who drive drunk. Based on reported accidents, it appears that the phone users and the drunks are a far greater menace than the elderly. There are many people who should not be driving.

I have known older people who should not be driving, and others who drove very safely and competently at a very advanced age. It is not appropriate to single out one group of problem drivers to try to get off the road and ignore the others.

Bottle Liquor is just going to STOP having those “Door Crasher” sales.

It is sad to continue to read about elderly and accidental acceleration. It seems to happen in this age group more than any other.

I think we should make it mandatory that after 70 you have to go in every three years and do an on street driving test. Of course some scream unfair. When my dad turned 70 he said he thought people should be. I’m all for it and when I reach that in twenty years I would be fine with it.

Older people may have a life time of driving but they also are now slowed more by age, memory and other ailments of age. There are good older drivers. Unfortunately also bad one’s and they won’t admit they are till it is to late.

That would be ageist profiling, and illegal. Sensible and safe, yes, but our p.c. planet is more concerned with feel-good inclusivity than with solving problems.

Yea sadly you are right. I’ve been saying the above for years but I also know the odds of it happening and having seen how the AARP defends, it is a long shot.

You know that AARP doesn’t stand for “American Association of Retied Persons” anymore.

It’s an Insurance Company.

It’s also ageist to not let a 9 year old drive. With the Baby Boomers hitting senior status it’s time to take a serious look at drivers over 80. Perhaps driving after dark in huge tanks should be prohibited for a start and yearly driving evaluations as well. Ironically,unless it has changed, Morro Bay has Dial-a-Ride, which will take seniors (door to door) for a small fee.

That is because the protection of rights and due process IS solving problems much larger. That is why I groan every time I hear someone talk about how there needs to be limits to the freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms, and due process, etc. in order to address one problem or another. Great wisdom determined that it solves more problems to limit these rights than it does to protect them.

This isn’t political correctness, it’s the OPPOSITE of political correctness. Freedom isn’t free, but it doesn’t come at the cost of blowing everyone up, it comes at the cost of a little bit of safety and convenience.

should read “creates more problems to limit these rights”

I’ve got to disagree with you to a small extent here. First of all driving is not a “right” although many view it as such. Traffic systems require an amazing amount of coordinated effort from everyone involved to operate smoothly and with reasonable safety. That is why there are tests to be sure drivers know how to fit in to the system before they are allowed to drive.

There are other options to getting around than driving. We could certainly use more of them locally because they aren’t as time efficient now as driving somewhere in a car, but between taking buses, taxis or Dial-a- Ride, even seniors with limited personal mobility can get to where they are going in most cases. If we can require new drivers to pass driving tests, there is no legal or moral reason that we can’t require them for people who are slowly disabled by the ravages of time. In this case, public safety is served every bit as much as it is by DUI laws and there isn’t an overwhelming argument for limitation of individual rights. (I do agree with you about that view on more applicable issues.)

I am not saying that driving is a right, but that fair and equal due process is a right. I probably should have been more specific in stating my argument, which is that making people go in every 3 years after 70 is a violation of that. However, if we want to make everyone go in every 3 years, or ideally someone could come up with something more creative, then that would be different.

Creativity should be key though, because despite what public safety officials say about DUI laws, they do not appear to have served public safety AT ALL. They will tell you that since 1982 that the number deaths has decreased significantly. What they will not tell you is that the percentage of deaths from alcohol related accidents to all deaths from traffic accidents has not changed by even a point. This indicates that the reduction is deaths is because cars are safer, not because of DUI laws. And that is despite the fact that they have continuously broadened the definition of what is an “alcohol related accident.” Sometimes they will use this statistic, but when they do it is always in the context of a few years which they choose in order to be able to cite the desired outcome.

Did you guys know that anyone can “refer” a person for the DMV to talk to? It’s an anonymous form you submit.

Anyhow, we’re taking great strides with graduated licensing with teens so I wonder when we’ll consider something along those lines with seniors and their degrading (bad word) sense of reaction, hearing and night vision?

Did you know that is pretty down-right scary? I mean, this could be abused in so many ways. Be VERY WARY of allowing the government to take action based on anonymous tips and information! It is a very easily-abused system that cannot be good for those governed.

It was a tragedy and accidents happen, regardless of age, race, sex, etc.

My thinking is if it COULD be abused it WOULD be and so far that’s not the case. Many people are no longer driving because someone loved them enough to make a move. OR just knew they had no business driving!

Stunned: Teens don’t vote, so the pols can take from them whatever freedoms/priveliges they wish. Seniors vote a lot, making it much harder to manhandle them.

Ok, for the sake of debate why not bring on a better idea to discuss. You talk about manhandling seniors so I see we’ve rubbed the raw off of something you need so spill it……what’s your suggestion my friend?

My idea is to have a way for a concerned relative or friend to get senile grandma or grandpa off of the roadway before they kill or get killed. Wringing our hands and hoping won’t do it.

While I believe the concept of punitive damages has raised the cost of everything and stifled a bunch of creativity, the fact that we can be spanked financially for driving while drunk/old/texting/whatever ought to serve as a reasonable deterrent.

I recognize that it doesn’t.

Perhaps a couple of Betty White types taking the bus to the poorhouse after driving through the front window of the hair salon would help grandma WANT to get out from behind the wheel.

My point is that giving people an incentive to do right will work much better than more regulation.

at least after 80