Hammontree v. Jenner

20 Cal. App. 3d 528, 97 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1971)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Jenner (D) was driving his car when he had an epileptic seizure and passed out. D's car crashed into Hammontree's (P) shop, injuring P and his wife. D had not had a seizure in a number of years and was cleared by the DMV to drive. DMV had placed him on probation under which every six months he had to report to the doctor who was required to advise it in writing of D's condition. In 1960 his probation was changed to a once-a-year report. P sued for damages based on negligence and strict liability. D testified he had a medical history of epilepsy and knows of no other reason for his loss of consciousness except an epileptic seizure. D had been placed on medication when his condition was diagnosed as petit mal seizure. D was taking phelantin on a regular basis which controlled his condition from 1955 until the accident occurred in 1967. D claims that he was not liable because he had taken all the necessary precautions and the accident was unforeseeable. P withdrew their claim of negligence and, after both parties rested and before jury argument, objected to the giving of any instructions on negligence electing to stand solely on the theory of absolute liability. The objection was overruled and the court refused P's requested instruction. D got the verdict. P appealed, claiming that the court erred in not granting their motion for summary judgment based on strict liability.