Is a defendant guilty of aggravated DUI where an accident occurs and any amount of drugs or alcohol are in the driver’s system? Can another intervening cause be used as a defense against the assertion that it was the consumption of alcohol or drugs that was the direct cause of the accident and thus requires a guilty finding? In People v. Way 2015 IL App (5th), the Appellate Court explored the assertion that the statute provides for a strict liability interpretation. The defendant was find guilty, after a bench trial, of aggravated driving under the influence. The facts of the case relevant to the decision were that the defendant was involved in a two-car accident wherein her fourteen years old son, a passenger in her vehicle, was seriously injured as a result of the accident. She was charged with the aggravated driving under the influence with the State presenting evidence alleging that she had consumed alcohol and had smoked marijuana on the day of the accident. After a bench trail, following numerous motions, the Court found the defendant guilty asserting that the Illinois Vehicle Code § 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6) is a strict liability statute where the proximate cause of injuries is not relevant. During the course of motions before the trial, the defendant’s attorney attempted to present evidence of possible alternative causes of the accident based on the defendant’s medical condition at the time of the accident. The court ruled that this evidence of the alternative proximate cause of the accident was disqualified. The defendant appealed the guilty verdict. The Appellate Court determined that the defendant should have been allowed to present her medical evidence, as to an alternative approximate cost of the accident and the injuries, allowing her to put on a proper defense as to the charge of the aggravated driving under the influence. The Appellate Court refused to interpret the statute as if the general assembly had intended for the particular paragraph of the statue to be read as a strict liability standard – where no alternative proximate causes of the related accident were allowed to be introduced at trial to determine guilt for the DUI charge. The Appellate Court found that the language in the statute stating “when the violation was the proximate cost of the injuries” made it fairly clear that it was the intent of legislators to provide for a causal connection to be proven at the time of the trial. On the other hand this same language would allow for the defendant to provide evidence of alternative causes of the accident as a defense – such as a medical problem as in this case.