Steinhauser v. Hertz Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Torts

TortsCausationPreexisting ConditionsEmotional Disturbanceproximate causeprecipitating causelatent diseasepreexisting condition

Facts

A Hertz-owned car driven by defendant Ponzini crossed a double yellow line and struck the Steinhauser family car; the occupants suffered no bodily injuries. Within minutes of the collision, 14-year-old Cynthia began exhibiting extreme behavioral disturbances, and she soon developed severe psychiatric symptoms that led to repeated hospitalization and continuing psychiatric care. Plaintiffs' medical experts testified that Cynthia had a predisposition or prepsychotic personality but that the accident was the precipitating cause of her overt schizophrenic illness. Defendants' expert contended that she was already schizophrenic at the time of the accident.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs were entitled to recover on a theory that defendants' negligence precipitated or activated Cynthia's latent psychotic tendencies into active schizophrenia, and whether the trial court erred by forcing the case into an all-or-nothing choice between no prior condition and preexisting active schizophrenia.

Rule

A defendant is liable when negligence precipitates, activates, or accelerates a latent or preexisting condition into active disease or injury; the plaintiff need not prove either perfect prior health or absence of any predisposition. A preexisting tendency may affect damages by permitting a discount for harm likely to have occurred anyway, but it is not a complete defense to liability.

🔒

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.

In Albany, Nora Kim was riding in a taxi when the driver negligently sideswiped a parked van. Nora had no history of overt psychiatric illness, but her psychiatrist later testified that she had long possessed a latent bipolar vulnerability that became an active disorder immediately after the crash. The defense argues that because Nora was predisposed, the driver cannot be liable.

Under the majority rule, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a negligent defendant may be liable when the negligence precipitates, activates, or accelerates a latent or preexisting condition into active disease. The plaintiff need not prove perfect prior health or the total absence of predisposition. A latent susceptibility is not a complete defense to liability. (Derived from Steinhauser v. Hertz Corp. (n.d.).)