Ramey v. Knorr
130 Wash. App. 672, 124 P.3d 314, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS 2715 (2005)
Rule of Law:
Insanity and other mental incapacities are generally not recognized as defenses to a claim of negligence; a narrow exception for sudden mental incapacity may apply only if the defendant had no prior notice or forewarning of the potential for disability and the disability rendered them incapable of conforming to ordinary care.
Facts:
- Nancy Knorr, while in a delusional state and attempting suicide, turned her car into oncoming traffic on I-405 and collided head-on with Lanette Ramey's car.
- Lanette Ramey suffered substantial injuries from the collision.
- In 1994, Knorr experienced a mental breakdown, was hospitalized for 10 days, diagnosed with possible delusional disorder, put on medication, and advised to see a psychiatrist.
- After three months, Knorr stopped seeing her psychiatrist and stopped taking her medication.
- Beginning in March 2001, Knorr's delusional thoughts about her brother being a murderer returned and escalated significantly by November 2001, almost a year before the accident.
- The day before the accident, Knorr believed intruders were coming to her house to kidnap and rape her and her husband.
- The morning of the accident, a friend offered to take Knorr to the hospital, but she refused to go.
Procedural Posture:
- Lanette Ramey sued Nancy Knorr for negligence in trial court.
- Knorr moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied.
- At the close of all the evidence at trial, both Knorr and Ramey moved for directed verdicts.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for Ramey, ruling that Knorr’s sudden mental incapacity defense could not be sustained on the basis of the evidence.
- A jury returned a verdict for Ramey in the amount of $497,578.
- The trial court denied Knorr’s posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial.
- Knorr appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Washington.
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 a defendant in a negligence action qualify for the defense of sudden mental incapacity when they had prior notice or forewarning of their potential for becoming mentally disabled?
Opinions:
Majority - Cox, C.J.
No, Nancy Knorr was not entitled to the defense of sudden mental incapacity because the evidence clearly established she had notice and forewarning of her mental condition. The court reaffirmed the general rule that insanity or mental deficiencies are not defenses to negligence, holding mentally ill individuals to a reasonable person standard to ensure compensation for innocent victims and to avoid difficulties in measuring mental illness. While acknowledging a narrow exception adopted by some jurisdictions (such as in Wisconsin's Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.) for sudden mental incapacity, this defense requires proof of no prior notice or forewarning of the disability and that the disability rendered the person incapable of conforming to ordinary care. Knorr failed to meet the 'absence of notice or forewarning' prong of this test. The court found that Knorr's 1994 hospitalization for delusional behavior, her subsequent cessation of medication and psychiatric care, and the recurrence and escalation of her delusions for months leading up to the accident (including severe paranoia the day before) constituted sufficient forewarning. Under an objective standard, a reasonable person would have foreseen that Knorr's mental condition could affect her driving. Although Knorr did meet the second prong of the test (incapable of conforming to ordinary care) because her delusional beliefs prevented her from understanding her duty to drive carefully despite retaining physical control, the presence of forewarning negated the defense. The court declined to formally adopt or reject the Breunig exception but ruled that, even if Washington were to recognize it, Knorr would not qualify based on the facts.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the general rule in Washington that mental incapacity is not a defense to negligence, prioritizing victim compensation. By examining the Breunig 'sudden mental incapacity' exception, the court provides a detailed framework for its application, particularly stressing the 'forewarning' element. This decision sets a high bar for claiming such a defense, making it clear that any prior knowledge or symptoms of a mental condition, even if treatment was discontinued, will likely defeat the 'suddenness' requirement. It implies a duty for individuals with known mental health issues to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks, thereby limiting the scope for using mental illness as an exculpatory factor in tort liability.
