## Facts

- Margie Marie Wodarz was involved in two automobile collisions occurring close in time on the same occasion.
- In the first collision, Wodarz rear-ended another vehicle and left the scene; an officer recorded that her behavior appeared “bizarre.”
- Shortly afterward, Wodarz collided with the vehicle occupied by Mubarak Bashi and Nasim Akhtar, who sued for negligence based on this second collision.
- Wodarz reported little memory of either incident and stated she “wigged out,” lacked control, and had a family history of mental problems.
- In nonbinding judicial arbitration, Wodarz presented unrebutted medical evidence attributing the collision to a sudden, unanticipated onset of mental illness and characterizing the event as unavoidable.
- The arbitrator denied plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that the sudden onset of mental illness made the collision unavoidable.
- Plaintiffs requested a trial de novo and moved to reopen discovery, asserting the mental-illness theory was unexpected; the trial court denied the motion.
- Wodarz moved for summary judgment, arguing the sudden, unanticipated mental disorder negated negligence as a matter of law; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment and the denial of their motion to reopen discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether a sudden, unanticipated onset of mental illness can relieve a defendant of negligence liability for operating a motor vehicle.
2. Whether a mentally disabled defendant is held to the same objective reasonable-care standard as a defendant without mental disability.
3. Whether summary judgment is proper when the defense is premised on sudden mental illness as a complete excuse from negligence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Wodarz.
- The court held that sudden, unanticipated mental illness does not preclude negligence liability for automobile operation.
- The court concluded that mental disability does not alter the objective reasonable-person standard applicable in negligence cases.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Civil Code § 41, persons of “unsound mind” remain civilly liable for their wrongful acts, including negligent conduct.
- Negligence is generally measured by an objective reasonable-person standard that does not adjust for a defendant’s mental disability.
- California law does not recognize sudden mental illness as a complete defense to negligence comparable to doctrines excusing drivers who suffer sudden, unforeseeable physical incapacitation.
- Policy considerations support applying a uniform objective standard: difficulties in verifying mental incapacity, risk of fabricated claims, fair allocation of loss to the actor causing harm, and incentives for responsible supervision and insurance.

## Conclusion

The court held that a driver’s sudden, unanticipated mental illness is not a complete excuse from negligence liability; mentally disabled defendants are judged by the same objective reasonable-care standard as other defendants, making summary judgment improper on a mental-illness excuse theory.


Bashi v. Wodarz, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1314 (Ct. App. 1996)