Hammontree v. Jenner
Facts
Defendant was driving home when, without warning, his car crashed through the wall of plaintiffs' bicycle shop, injuring plaintiff Maxine Hammontree and damaging the shop. Defendant claimed he became unconscious during an epileptic seizure and testified he had no warning before the event. He had a history of epilepsy, had been under medical supervision for years, took prescribed medication regularly from 1955 until the accident, complied with his doctors' instructions, and was subject to periodic Department of Motor Vehicles reporting requirements. His physician testified that the medication controlled the condition, that it would be impossible to drive during a seizure, and that he believed it was safe for defendant to drive.
Issue
May a driver who loses control of a car because of an epileptic seizure be held absolutely or strictly liable for resulting injuries, rather than judged under negligence principles? More specifically, did the trial court err in refusing plaintiffs' requested instruction imposing absolute liability on a driver who loses the ability to control a vehicle because of a seizure or health failure?
Rule
Under California appellate authority, when a driver is suddenly stricken by an illness that renders him unconscious, liability for injuries resulting from the accident rests on principles of negligence, not strict or absolute liability. The court also declined to extend products-liability-style strict liability to drivers, leaving any such comprehensive change to the Legislature.
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
Test yourself
If Nora argues Leo should be held strictly liable because he knew of his condition and was the only person who could foresee the danger, how should the court rule?