 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ramey v. Knorr10/17/2005
be difficult to measure and is a major obstacle for applying a mental deficiency defense. Other rationales include the belief that liability of the mentally ill will encourage caretakers to look after them and the difficulty of drawing a line between mental illness and variations of temperaments, intellect, and emotional balance.
Knorr expressly disclaims an insanity defense or an argument that mental illness alone is a defense to negligence. Instead, she maintains that 'a driver who suffers an acute psychotic episode, which incapacitates the driver, is not chargeable with negligence.' While noting that Washington has not addressed this issue, Knorr primarily relies on authority from the state of Wisconsin, Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co. Accordingly, we consider whether that case is applicable to the matter before us.
'Sudden Mental Incapacity' Defense
In Breunig, the defendant, Erma Veith was driving her car when she believed that God was taking control of the steering wheel and directing her car. Believing she could fly 'because Batman can,' Mrs. Veith stepped on the gas and collided with an oncoming truck. At trial, a psychiatrist testified that Mrs. Veith was unable to operate the vehicle with her conscious mind. A jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Breunig recognized an exception for sudden mental incapacity and adopted a two part test stating, {the} disorder must be such as to {1(a)} affect the person's ability to understand and appreciate the duty which rests upon him to drive his car with ordinary care, or {1(b)} if the insanity does not affect such understanding and appreciation, it must affect his ability to control his car in an ordinarily prudent manner. And {2} there must be an absence of notice or forewarning to the person that he may be suddenly subject to such a type of insanity or mental illness.
The Breunig test was further explained by the same court in Jankee v. Clark County. Sudden mental incapacity is a 'rare exception {and} applies only when two conditions are met: (1) the person has no prior notice or forewarning of his or her potential for becoming disabled, and (2) the disability renders the person incapable of conforming to the standards of ordinary care.'
The Breunig court upheld the jury's verdict, finding Mrs. Veith did have knowledge or forewarning that her hallucinations could affect her driving. Mrs. Veith had previously experienced delusional visions and should have known she posed a risk to others if she drove. The Wisconsin Supreme Court later limited the Breunig rule stating, ''{a}ll we hold is that a sudden mental incapacity equivalent in its effect to such physical causes as a sudden heart attack, epileptic seizure, stroke, or fainting should be treated alike and not under the general rule of insanity.''
Absence of Notice or Forewarning
Whether Knorr had notice or forewarning that her paranoia could affect her driving is the more difficult question presented. In order to meet the first prong of sudden mental incapacity, the defendant must have 'no prior notice or forewarning of his or her potential for becoming disabled.'
The standard of whether a defendant had notice or forewarning of the mental incapacity depends on whether the defendant had any forewarning or knowledge of a prior mental disability or disorder that incapacitates him from conforming his conduct to the standard of care. The driver must have been incapable of knowing that a mental incapacity could occur while driving, preventing the driver from avoiding a collision.
Whether a person has knowledge or forewarning of their condition
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|