Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1970 · Torts

Tortsnegligencemental illnesssudden incapacityreasonable personnegligenceinsanity defensemental illness

Facts

Erma Veith was driving when she experienced an insane delusion that God was taking hold of the steering wheel and directing her car. Believing she could fly like Batman, she accelerated as a truck approached and ultimately left the roadway and crashed, after which she was found unresponsive and later treated in a psychiatric ward. A psychiatrist testified that she was suffering from an acute paranoid schizophrenic reaction, that she could not consciously operate the vehicle during the episode, and that she had no forewarning such a disability would occur. There was also evidence that before the accident she had religious visions and beliefs, including that she had been chosen by God to survive the end of the world and that she told her daughter about these visions.

Issue

Is a driver relieved from negligence liability when she is suddenly overcome by a mental disorder that makes her unable to drive with ordinary care, if the disorder occurs without forewarning? And on this record, was there sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Mrs. Veith had notice or forewarning of such a condition?

Rule

Not all types of insanity vitiate responsibility for a negligent tort. A sudden mental incapacity is treated like sudden physical incapacity and may preclude negligence liability if the mental illness or delusion affects the person's ability to understand and appreciate the duty to drive with ordinary care, or affects the person's ability to control the car in an ordinarily prudent manner, and the person had no notice or forewarning that he or she might suddenly be subject to that type of mental illness or incapacity.

🔒

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.

On a clear afternoon in Tucson, Nina Alvarez was driving home from work when she suddenly became convinced that invisible engineers were remotely controlling her car. Witnesses said she stared straight ahead and failed to respond before drifting into oncoming traffic. Her psychiatrist later testified this was her first psychotic episode, that it rendered her unable to understand or control her driving, and that she had no prior warning of such an event.

If the injured motorist sues Nina for negligence, which is the most accurate statement?

Explanation. The majority held that not all insanity excuses negligence, but a sudden mental incapacity equivalent in effect to a sudden physical incapacity may preclude negligence if it affects the person's ability to understand the duty of ordinary care or to control the vehicle, and if it occurs without notice or forewarning. The issue would ordinarily be for the jury, not automatic either way. (Derived from Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co. (1970).)