Cohen
v. Petty
Citation. 62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1933).
***
Summary. Plaintiff was injured while riding in a car driven by Defendant. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence and claimed Defendant was speeding at the time of the accident. Defendant proffered uncontested evidence that he lost control of the car because he fainted immediately prior to the accident, on the strength of which the trial court directed a verdict for Defendant.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
Citation. 62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1933).
***
Summary. Plaintiff was injured while riding in a car driven by Defendant. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence and claimed Defendant was speeding at the time of the accident. Defendant proffered uncontested evidence that he lost control of the car because he fainted immediately prior to the accident, on the strength of which the trial court directed a verdict for Defendant.
Rule of Law. When a
Plaintiff fails to show any actionable negligence on the part of the
Defendant, and the Defendant's uncontested evidence shows the injury
resulted from a sudden, unforeseeable illness, a verdict is properly
directed for the Defendant.
Facts.
Plaintiff and his
sister were riding in the back of a car driven by Defendant with
Defendant's wife in the passenger seat. Plaintiff suffered injuries
when Defendant lost control of the car and drove it off the road.
Plaintiff and his sister testified that the car was traveling at an
excessive speed, but Defendant's uncontested evidence showed that he
fainted just before losing control of the car, that he had no reason
to expect that such a fainting spell would occur, and that this is
what caused the accident.
Issue.
Did the trial court
properly direct a verdict in favor of the Defendant based upon
evidence of the fainting spell?
Holding.
Yes. The trial court's
directed verdict was upheld.
- • A motorist suddenly stricken with illness causing loss of control of an automobile resulting in injuries to another is not guilty of negligence when he had no reason to anticipate the illness.
Analysis.
This case introduces
the issue of foreseeability into the question of fault. An essential
component of its holding is that a motorist suffering from such an
attack must have had no reason to anticipate the onset of a fainting
spell. No longer inquiring solely whether Defendant intended to cause
injury, the Court was required to consider whether Defendant had
reason to foresee causing the injury.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment