CASE BRIEF: HAMMONTREE V JENNER

Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Liability

Section B: When Should Unintended Injury Result in Liability?
Name: Hammontree v Jenner,
Issuing Court: Court of Appeal of California, 1971.
Rule: No absolute liability for damages exists for a driver who experiences a sudden
physical illness that renders him unconscious and causes an accident during that time.
Facts:
Appellant: Hammontree (shop owner)
Appellee: Jenner (epileptic driver)
April 25, 1967: J crashed car into Hs shop and struck H and cause personal injuries and
damage to the shop
J claims he became unconscious during epileptic shock-does not recall accident
D has medical history of epilepsy- from 1952-day of accident had been on meds that
controlled condition- did everything doctors told him- had no idea accident would happen
DMV aware of J epilepsy- J followed rules of DMV
Procedure:
Hammontree and her husband sued Jenner for personal injuries and property damage in a trial
court of CA. Cause tried in jury- judgment for J. H appeal from judgment against them.
Theories of the parties:
Appellant: withdrew claim of negligence. trial court erred in refusing to grant the plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment on the issue of absolute liability, as well as denying motion for
directed verdict on claim that the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to give their
jury instruction on absolute liability. Appellants wish to override established law of CA in
recognition of absolute liability as it applies to product liability logic. Argument: only driver can
anticipate the hazards of physical condition- should that person lose ability to operate vehicle
that person should be held accountable under strict liability.
Issue:
Did the lower court err in refusing to give an absolute-liability instruction pertaining to
defendants operation of his vehicle while have knowledge of his epilepsy?
Holding:
No, the trial court judge properly refused the instruction for absolute liability. Precedents hold
that liability of a driver-suddenly stricken by illness- rests on principles of negligence.
Reasoning:
liability of a driver, suddenly stricken by an illness rendering him unconscious, for injury
resulting from an accident occurring during that time rests on principles of negligence.
WEEK 1: INTRO TO TORT LIABILITY

CASE BRIEF: HAMMONTREE V JENNER

Cannot superimpose absolute liability of products liability cases upon drivers under these
circumstance- apply to manufacturer, retailers, and distributors of products
to invoke a rule of strict liability on users of the streets and highwayswould only
contribute to confusion to the automobile accident problem

Disposition: Disposition: Judgment affirmed

WEEK 1: INTRO TO TORT LIABILITY

CASE BRIEF: HAMMONTREE V JENNER

CLASS NOTES
Hypos:
Rules and Elements:

Boilerplate negligence instruction: Negligence is the doing of something which a

reasonably prudent person would not do or the failure to do something which a
reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those show by the
evidence. It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care. Ordinary or reasonable care
is that care which person of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to
themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. Pg. 47
Fault: behavior that is negligent
Strict liability: dont need to show negligence of intent. In products liability- even if
manufacturer did everything in its power to quell harm to consumer he is strictly liable.

Rationales:
Think about the social policy implications of tort rules- what will this do to people with
disabilities- limit them from engaging in every day activities. On other hand, most people
are not BORN with disabilities, but became disabled as a result of an accident. So maybe
this is a good thing for community?
Nuggets:
See page 16. The other spouse can bring claim that the relationship has been damaged
because of injury. Consortium: marital alliance between husband and wife and their
respective right to each others support, cooperation, aid and companionship.
Other Notes from Professor:
This case is about the difference between negligence and strict liability
Intent: acting with a purpose to harm
Precedents in this case: incapacitation resulting in loss of control. P wants to say the
precedents are not like my case! Our D was AWARE of his condition. Argued by analogy
to products liability asking court to change the law. Compares those with disabilities to
having a defect.
Court reasons that businesses are different than individuals because businesses are
profiting by activity- they can also raise price of goods
Move to categorize auto accidents as strict liability has not been successful

WEEK 1: INTRO TO TORT LIABILITY