Facts
- Phillip A. Breunig drove a truck eastbound on Highway 19 near Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, when Erma Veith’s car entered the eastbound lane while traveling westbound.
- Breunig attempted to pull to the right to avoid a head-on collision; Veith’s vehicle struck the left rear of his truck.
- Veith’s insurer asserted Veith was not negligent because, just before the collision, she was seized without warning by a mental delusion that prevented conscious control of the car.
- Evidence indicated Veith experienced delusional beliefs while driving, including that God was directing the steering wheel and that she could become airborne by accelerating.
- After the incident, Veith appeared unresponsive and was hospitalized; she was diagnosed with acute paranoid-type schizophrenia.
- Evidence also showed Veith had experienced prior mental disturbances for years, including religious hallucinations affecting her work and daily life.
Issues
- Whether insanity or an insane delusion at the time of a collision can defeat a negligence claim against the driver.
- Whether sudden mental incapacity can excuse negligence in the same manner as sudden physical incapacity when it occurs without prior notice.
- Whether evidence supported submitting to the jury the question of Veith’s prior warning or knowledge of her susceptibility to such episodes.
- Whether the trial judge’s comments or conduct deprived the insurer of a fair trial.
Decision
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Breunig.
- The court held that insanity generally does not relieve a tortfeasor from liability for negligent conduct.
- The court recognized a limited defense where a sudden mental incapacity is equivalent in effect to sudden physical incapacities (e.g., heart attack, seizure, stroke, fainting) and occurs without notice or forewarning.
- The evidence permitted the jury to find Veith had prior knowledge or forewarning of her susceptibility to mental delusions and therefore was negligent in driving.
- The court rejected the fair-trial challenge, concluding the trial court’s conduct did not constitute prejudicial error.
Legal Principles
- Insanity is generally not a defense to liability for negligent torts.
- A driver may be excused from negligence if, at the time of the accident, the driver suffers a sudden mental incapacity that eliminates the ability to understand and appreciate the duty of ordinary care, provided the episode was not reasonably foreseeable to the driver.
- Sudden mental incapacity is treated like sudden physical incapacity when the loss of capacity is without notice or forewarning.
- When there is evidence of prior manifestations indicating susceptibility, the factfinder may conclude the actor had sufficient warning and was negligent for undertaking the activity (here, driving) despite that risk.
- Appellate relief based on trial judge conduct requires a showing of prejudicial unfairness affecting the verdict.
Conclusion
The court sustained liability because the jury could find the driver’s mental episode was not wholly unforeseeable to her; only sudden, unforeseeable mental incapacity comparable to sudden physical collapse can excuse negligence, and the record supported a finding of prior warning sufficient to make the decision to drive negligent.