Purvis v

Steve, 284 Ga. App. 116, 643 S.E.2d 380, cert. denied, No. S07C1063, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 517 (Ga. 2007). Penalty is assessed only against the operator, without reference to the owner of the vehicle involved or the employer of the driver, as the case may be. Georgia Power Co. v. Shipp, 195 Ga. 446, 24 S.E.2d 764 (1943) (decided under former Code 1933, § 68-308). Restitution not available unless leaving the scene caused damages. — Under O.C.G.A. §§ 17-14-2(2) and 17-14-9, restitution was not available for defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270(a) because the damage to the other vehicle was solely attributable to the collision between the cars defendant’s failure to stop after the collision neither caused nor contributed to the damage. Zipperer v. State, 299 Ga. App. 792, 683 S.E.2d 865 (2009). Jury Instructions Instruction required. — Trial court’s instruction on former § 40-6-271 (see now paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270) was essential when a defendant was charged with violating O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270, one specific element of which involves fulfilling the requirements of former § 40-6-271. Griffith v. State, 172 Ga. App. 255, 322 S.E.2d 921 (1984). General jury charge on negligence and proximate cause sufficient. — Since the jury was previously charged on theories of general negligence and proximate cause, it was not error not to charge that the failure to render aid must proxi- 218 mately cause the injury. Atlanta Transit Sys. v. Smith, 141 Ga. App. 87, 232 S.E.2d 580 (1977). Instruction for offenses under § 40-6-270. — Trial court’s instruction on former § 40-6-271 (see now paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(3) of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270), relating to the duty to give information and render aid, was essential when a defendant was charged with violating O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270, one specific element of which involved fulfilling the requirements of former § 40-6-271. Griffith v. State, 172 Ga. App. 255, 322 S.E.2d 921 (1984). Even though the trial court did not specifically instruct the jury on knowing failure as stated in O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270(b) and (c), giving the pattern charge on intent was sufficient to inform the jury that the defendants intended to evade the duty imposed by that section. Tidwell v. State, 216 Ga. App. 8, 453 S.E.2d 64 (1994). 40-6-270 Trial court did not improperly charge the jury on the entirety of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-270, even though the defendant was only accused of violating § 40-6-270(a), as the evidence that the defendant fled the scene of the accident without providing a name and other information was sufficient to sustain the conviction without even implicating the remainder of the statute. Craig v. State, 276 Ga. App. 329, 623 S.E.2d 518 (2005). Justification defense instruction was not warranted by the evidence. — Because the defendant contested the state’s claim of being impaired and challenged the results of the Intoxilyzer test, the defendant was not entitled to assert the defense of justification after being charged with leaving the scene of an accident and other related offenses; thus, an instruction on a justification defense was not warranted by the evidence. London v. State, 289 Ga. App. 17, 656 S.E.2d 180 (2007).