Hammontree v. Jenner
20 Cal. App. 3d 528 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver who suddenly loses consciousness due to an unforeseen medical episode and causes an accident is not subject to strict liability; liability must be determined based on principles of negligence.
Facts:
- On April 25, 1967, the defendant was driving his car when he experienced an epileptic seizure.
- As a result of the seizure, he lost control of his vehicle and crashed through the wall of a bicycle shop owned by plaintiffs Maxine Hammontree and her husband.
- The crash struck Maxine Hammontree, causing her personal injuries and damaging the shop.
- The defendant had a history of epilepsy and was under a doctor's care, taking prescribed medication which had successfully controlled his seizures for over ten years.
- The defendant's doctor had approved of him driving, and the defendant had no warning or inkling that he was about to have a seizure before the accident occurred.
- The defendant was in compliance with all Department of Motor Vehicles reporting requirements regarding his condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Maxine Hammontree and her husband sued the defendant in a trial court for personal injuries and property damage.
- During the trial, the plaintiffs withdrew their negligence claim and argued that the defendant should be held to a standard of absolute (strict) liability.
- The trial court refused the plaintiffs' request to instruct the jury on absolute liability and instead instructed them on negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of strict liability apply to a driver who, despite taking medical precautions for a known physical condition, suddenly loses consciousness and causes an accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Lillie, J.
No, the doctrine of strict liability does not apply; liability for a driver suddenly stricken by an illness rests on principles of negligence. The court reasoned that the policy justifications for imposing strict liability on manufacturers for defective products do not apply to individual drivers. Product liability is based on the idea that commercial enterprises are in a better position to bear and distribute the costs of injuries caused by their products. The court found this policy inapplicable to individual users of the highway and declined to extend the doctrine, citing a prior Supreme Court of California decision, Maloney v. Rath, which also refused to apply strict liability to automobile drivers. The court concluded that creating a system of strict liability for automobile accidents would create confusion and is a matter best left to the Legislature to address through a comprehensive statutory scheme.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes that the fault-based system of negligence, not the no-fault system of strict liability, governs ordinary automobile accidents, even in cases involving a driver's sudden loss of consciousness. The court's decision draws a clear and important line between commercial enterprises that distribute products and individual citizens engaged in everyday activities like driving. By refusing to extend the products liability doctrine, the ruling prevents a significant expansion of strict liability into general tort law and affirms that fundamental changes to the automobile accident compensation system should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary.
Unlock the full brief for Hammontree v. Jenner