Caseflicks

California Court of Appeal • 1971

Hammontree v. Jenner

20 Cal. App. 3d 528 | 97 Cal. Rptr. 739 | 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1197

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Hammontree v. Jenner preserves negligence, rather than strict liability, as the governing framework when a driver’s sudden medical incapacitation causes an accident; broader compensation reform is for the Legislature.

Background

Maxine Hammontree was working in the bicycle shop she owned with her husband when Richard Jenner’s car suddenly crashed through the shop wall, injuring her and damaging the business. Jenner testified that he lost consciousness during an epileptic seizure. He had a long history of epilepsy, but had regularly taken prescribed medication since 1955, followed his doctors’ directions, and had received no warning that a seizure was imminent. His physician believed that Jenner’s condition was controlled and that it was safe for him to drive.

The Hammontrees sued for personal injuries and property damage. Although they initially pleaded negligence, they withdrew that theory at trial and elected to proceed solely on absolute, or strict, liability. The trial court refused their proposed instruction that a driver is liable whenever a seizure or health failure causes loss of vehicle control, even without warning. It instead instructed the jury on negligence and res ipsa loquitur. The jury returned a verdict for Jenner, and the Hammontrees appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a driver who suddenly loses consciousness from an epileptic seizure should be held strictly liable for injuries caused by the resulting automobile accident, even absent negligence or warning of the seizure.

Holding

No. California law treats liability for an accident caused by a sudden incapacitating illness as a negligence question, not one of strict liability.

Reasoning

Existing California appellate decisions consistently held that when a driver is suddenly rendered unconscious by illness, liability for resulting injuries depends on negligence principles. Those decisions included cases involving sudden pain, fainting spells, sneezing, and heart attacks, and they controlled the dispute here.

The plaintiffs offered a logical policy argument: a driver who knows of a condition capable of causing unconsciousness is better positioned than an innocent victim to anticipate and insure against the risk. They analogized to strict products liability, under which manufacturers and sellers bear the costs of injuries from defective products placed into the market.

The court rejected that analogy because products liability rests on the special role of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in a commercial enterprise that introduces products into the public marketplace. An individual driver is not part of an equivalent producing and marketing enterprise, so the policy supporting strict liability for product sellers does not readily transfer to motorists.

The California Supreme Court had also declined to impose strict liability on automobile users in Maloney v. Rath. Creating such a rule without a detailed system for claims, settlements, and allocation of responsibility would create uncertainty and disrupt compensation procedures. A comprehensive no-fault or strict-liability compensation scheme for auto accidents, if desirable, was a matter for the Legislature rather than judicial case-by-case development.

Issue #2

Whether the plaintiffs’ proposed absolute-liability jury instruction was proper in its stated form.

Holding

No. The instruction was independently defective because it would impose liability even on a driver with no prior knowledge of, or reason to anticipate, a sudden incapacitating condition.

Reasoning

The requested instruction made a driver liable whenever a seizure or health failure caused loss of control, even if the driver had no warning of the event. Thus, it swept beyond Jenner’s particular circumstances—where he knew of his epilepsy and had previously suffered seizures—and covered drivers suddenly afflicted by wholly unanticipated illnesses.

Because the instruction failed to distinguish between a driver aware of a recurring incapacitating condition and a driver with no reason whatever to foresee such an event, it was overbroad. The trial court therefore properly refused it regardless of the plaintiffs’ broader argument for strict liability.