Cohen v. Petty

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 1933

62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820.

 

Facts:

• The plaintiff and her sister were riding in a car driven by the defendant.
• The defendant fainted and the car swerved into an embankment, injuring plaintiff
• The defendant had no prior fainting spells and had no reason to expect one while driving

Procedural History:

• Trial court found for the defendant (trial judge gave binding instructions to the jury) judge directs verdict- takes it away from the jury.
• Plaintiff appealed

Trial court decision affirmed 

Issue:

Was the trial court correct in taking the verdict from the jury? Whether a driver who is suddenly overtaken by illness is liable for injuries resulting from losing control of the car.

Holding:

The lower court was correct. The driver who is acting using ordinary care is not negligent if overtaken by sudden illness if the illness is neither known nor expected.

Rule:

Someone who has exercised ordinary care is not guilty of negligence during an unforeseen event that renders him unable to control the vehicle.

A person cannot be charged with negligence if he did not know or had reason to think that he would be subject to an attack rendering him unable to control his vehicle.

Reasoning:

* Plaintiff argues that the driver was reckless, defendant argues that he fainted.

*A person driving a car struck by a sudden illness that renders him unable to control the car cannot be charged with negligence if the illness is neither known nor expected.

* Petty had no reason to think that he would be overcome with an illness that would lead him to lose control of his car and injure the plaintiff, which fits the standard of ordinary care, and is therefore not guilty of negligence.

* Petty did not contribute to his sudden illness and is therefore not guilty of negligence.

Court’s Order:

Trial court decision affirmed

New Information:

No facts in dispute.

New standard for Ordinary Care: something that has not happened before and is not expected.