HAMMONTREE V. JENNER
20 Cal. App. 3d 528, 97 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1971)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a jury verdict rendered in favor of Jenner
(D) in Hammontree's (P) personal-injury action.
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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment