Hammontree v. Jenner
Citation: 20 Cal. App. 3d 528 (1971)
Facts
Jenner, who had epilepsy and was authorized to drive by his doctor and the DMV, suffered a sudden seizure while driving and crashed into Hammontree’s bike shop. Hammontree argued that Jenner should be strictly liable because he had a known seizure condition.
Issue
Should a driver with a known medical condition that might cause sudden incapacity be held strictly liable for accidents caused by a sudden attack?
Holding
No. The court refused to apply strict liability. Negligence, not strict liability, is the appropriate standard for drivers with known medical conditions. Liability requires a showing that the defendant was negligent in driving given knowledge of the risk.
Rule
No strict liability for sudden incapacity: A driver who suffers an unforeseeable sudden medical emergency is not strictly liable for resulting accidents. Liability requires negligence — either in the act of driving despite knowing the risk, or in failing to take precautions. If the attack was genuinely unforeseeable (no warning signs, compliance with medical advice), there is no liability.
Significance
- Key case distinguishing strict liability from negligence in automobile accident law
- The court refused to extend strict liability to individuals, limiting it to abnormally dangerous activities and products (where defendants are commercial actors)
- Shows the policy considerations: extending strict liability to individual drivers would create insurance-based liability for any medical emergency, which courts are reluctant to impose
- Contrasted with Rylands v. Fletcher (strict liability for keeping dangerous things on one’s land)