Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.
45 Wis. 2d 536, 173 N.W.2d 619 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Insanity is not a defense to negligence when the individual had prior knowledge or warning of their mental illness and its potential to affect their ability to act in a reasonably prudent manner.
Facts:
- For several months prior to the accident, Erma Veith experienced visions and held beliefs that she had a special relationship with God and was chosen to survive the end of the world.
- Veith had told her daughter about her visions.
- On the day of the accident, while driving her car, Veith began following a white light on a car ahead of her.
- Veith then experienced a delusion that God was taking control of the steering wheel.
- Believing she could fly like Batman, Veith accelerated her car toward an oncoming truck, intending to become airborne.
- Veith's car collided with a truck driven by Mr. Breunig.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. Breunig sued Erma Veith's insurance company in a Wisconsin trial court, alleging negligence.
- The case was tried before a jury on the theory that Veith was negligent because she had forewarning of her mental condition.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Veith negligent and awarded Mr. Breunig $10,000 in damages.
- The trial court, on post-verdict motions, found the damages excessive and reduced the award to $7,000, giving the plaintiff the option to accept the reduced amount or face a new trial.
- The plaintiff accepted the reduced award, and judgment was entered.
- The defendant insurance company appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the plaintiff sought review of the trial court's reduction of damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a person liable for negligence for causing an accident during a sudden mental delusion if they had some prior warning or knowledge of their mental condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Hallows, C. J.
Yes, a person who causes an accident during a sudden mental delusion is liable for negligence if they had prior warning of their condition. While a sudden mental incapacity without forewarning is a defense to negligence, analogous to a sudden physical incapacity like a heart attack, it does not apply where there is evidence of forewarning. The court reasoned that liability for negligence is predicated on fault, and it is unjust to hold a person responsible for conduct they are incapable of avoiding if that incapability was unknown to them. However, if a person has knowledge of a condition that could cause them to lose control of an automobile, they are negligent for choosing to drive. In this case, Veith's history of visions and bizarre beliefs was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that she had forewarning of her mental instability and the possibility of hallucinations that could affect her driving.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the traditional common law rule that insanity is not a defense to negligence. By treating a sudden, unforeseeable mental incapacity like a sudden, unforeseeable physical incapacity (e.g., a heart attack), the court shifts the focus from the person's mental state at the moment of the act to the foreseeability of the incapacitating event. This establishes a modern, fault-based standard where liability depends on whether the individual had sufficient forewarning of their condition to justify holding them negligent for undertaking the risk-creating activity, such as driving. The ruling makes the existence of 'forewarning' a critical question of fact for the jury in such cases.
Unlock the full brief for Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.