Bashi v. Wodarz

California Court of Appeal · Torts

TortsNegligenceAutomobile accidentsMental illnessnegligenceauto accidentmental illnessunsound mind

Facts

Defendant was involved in a rear-end collision with a third party and then, shortly afterward, was involved in a second collision with plaintiffs. According to the traffic report, defendant acted bizarrely and said she had "twigged out," had no control of her actions, and remembered only hitting one vehicle and then being involved in a second collision; she also said her family had a history of mental problems and that she had "freaked out." In the ensuing negligence action, defendant relied on unrebutted medical expert evidence and the traffic report to argue that she had suffered a sudden, unanticipated onset of mental illness just before the collision. The trial court accepted that theory and entered summary judgment for defendant.

Issue

Whether, in California, the sudden and unanticipated onset of mental illness that renders a driver unable to control a vehicle is a defense to a negligence action for the operation of a motor vehicle. Relatedly, whether such a showing entitled defendant to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Rule

A sudden and unanticipated mental illness or disorder does not, as a matter of law, preclude liability for negligence in California. Under Civil Code section 41, a person of unsound mind is civilly liable for a wrong done by that person, and harmful conduct is judged by the objective reasonable person standard; the sudden-illness defense recognized for unexpected physical incapacitation does not extend to mental illness.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While driving in Fresno, Elena Ortiz suddenly experiences an unexpected psychotic episode, veers across two lanes, and strikes Noah Kim's car. Elena had no prior diagnosis and offers psychiatric testimony that the episode came without warning and made her unable to control the vehicle.

In Noah's negligence action, which is the strongest assessment of Elena's argument that the episode is a complete defense?

Explanation. The majority held that California does not extend the sudden-illness defense for unexpected physical incapacitation to sudden mental illness. Civil Code section 41 makes a person of unsound mind civilly liable for civil wrongs, including negligence, and the conduct is measured by an objective reasonable person standard rather than the actor's actual mental capacity. (Derived from Bashi v. Wodarz (n.d.).)