## Facts

- Thomas H. Jenner, who had a known history of epilepsy controlled by medication, drove home from work on April 25, 1967.
- Jenner’s car crashed through the wall of Maxine Hammontree’s bicycle shop, injuring her and damaging the shop.
- Jenner asserted he suffered an unexpected epileptic seizure, became unconscious without warning, and lost control of the vehicle.
- Jenner had long-term medical supervision and regularly took prescribed anti-seizure medication; he testified he followed his physicians’ instructions and had no warning of a seizure before the collision.
- The California Department of Motor Vehicles had been informed of Jenner’s epilepsy years earlier and permitted him to drive subject to periodic medical reporting requirements.
- The Hammontrees sued for personal injury and property damage on theories of negligence and strict (absolute) liability, arguing Jenner’s decision to drive with knowledge of his condition justified liability without fault.

## Issues

1. Whether a driver who unexpectedly becomes unconscious from an epileptic seizure while driving should be held strictly liable for resulting injuries and property damage.
2. Whether such liability instead turns on negligence, including whether the driver acted reasonably in light of a known medical condition and compliance with medical and regulatory requirements.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Jenner following a jury verdict in his favor.
- The trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on strict liability and correctly submitted the case under negligence principles, including sudden illness/unconsciousness.
- The court held that a driver’s liability for accidents occurring while the driver is suddenly stricken unconscious by illness rests on negligence, not strict liability.

## Legal Principles

- Sudden illness or unconsciousness while driving is a negligence question: liability depends on whether the driver failed to act as a reasonable person would in light of the risk.
- Strict products-liability rules do not extend to ordinary drivers merely because driving can cause serious harm and the driver has a medical condition.
- Whether broad, fault-free loss allocation for automobile accidents should exist is primarily a legislative policy determination, not a rule to be created through judicial extension of strict liability doctrine.
- A driver with a known condition may be liable if the episode was reasonably foreseeable or if the driver failed to follow medical advice or regulatory limits; absent such proof, a finding of no negligence may stand.

## Conclusion

The court declined to impose strict liability on drivers who unexpectedly lose consciousness from illness and held that responsibility for such accidents is determined by negligence; because the jury could find Jenner acted reasonably given medical control of his condition and lack of warning, the defense verdict was affirmed.


Hammontree v. Jenner, 20 Cal. App. 3d 528, 97 Cal. Rptr. 739 (Ct. App. 1971)