1L Law Source

Heading: Hammontree v. Jenner Court of Appeal of CA, 1971. 20 Cal.App.3d 528, 97 Cal.Rptr. 739. p 3

Facts: - D had a history of epileptic seizures but thought that the seizures were under control of medicine

D had a seizure and lost consciousness
D’s car crashed through the wall of a bicycle shop
P was injured and the shop damaged
D could not recall any of the details of the accident from the time the seizure began until he was removed from his car after the accident

Procedure: P sued D for personal injuries and property damage arising out of an automobile accident. The case was tried to a jury. Plaintiff appealed from a judgement from the jury against them.

Issue: Should the jury be instructed on absolute liability in cases of unintended injury in which the defendant had no reason to anticipate and had no prior knowledge of illnesses that could impair his ability to drive?

Rule: When there is no prior knowledge or reason to anticipate accidents, drivers cannot be held to strict liability.

Holding: D had no prior knowledge or reason to anticipate his epileptic seizure which caused him to loose consciousness and drive through the front of the P’s shop. Because of this D cannot be held to strict liability.

Rationale: Appellants incorrectly compared this case to that of a manufacturer knowingly selling products that are not inspected for defects. Manufacturers are a part of marketing enterprises and should be responsible for defective goods. This is not the same situation for drivers. In past cases the CA SC has refused to apply the system of strict liability to drivers citing an increase in confusion to the automobile accident problem. In keeping with past cases strict liability cannot be applied to automobile drivers.

Policy/Notes: P wanted jury instructions on strict liability and negligence. Judge only instructed on negligence.