LearningLaw® Presents AristotleTM
 LearningLaw.com

Sample Brief

 		 
 
[ A Brief of Hammontree v. Jenner ]

The Parties
History of the case
Facts of the Case
  • The defendant was driving his car home from work when he became unconscious and crashed through the wall of the plaintiff's shop, struck the plaintiff and caused personal injuries and damage to the shop.
  • The defendant claimed he became unconscious immediately prior to the accident, with no inkling or warning.
  • The defendant had a medical history of epilepsy and knows of no other reason for his loss of consciousness except an epileptic seizure.
  • The defendant was on probation with the Department of Motor Vehicles, which required him to visit his doctor once a year.
  • The defendant saw his doctor as required and continued to take medication as prescribed by his physician and has done everything his doctors told him to do to avoid a seizure.
  • The defendant's doctor testified that during the times he saw defendant, and according to his history, defendant "was doing normally" and that he continued to take his medication. The doctor believed it was safe for Jenner to drive.

    (the Facts in the Case)

Plaintiff/Appellant's argument
    The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by not giving jury instructions based on strict liability (also referred to as absolute liability, or no-fault liability). She argued that strict liability should be applied in the case of an automobile accident that was caused by a driver who knew that he was affected by a potentially debilitating physical condition. The plaintiff further argued that only the driver could anticipate the hazards and foresee the dangers involved in his operation of a motor vehicle.

    (the Plaintiff's Argument in the Case)

Defendant/Appellee's argument
    Defendant argued that the trial court was correct in applying the negligence law just as all the prior cases did.

    (The Defendant's Argument is not explicitly stated.)

Issue
    Which standard of liability should be applied in the case of an automobile accident resulting from a driver inhibited by a known medical condition?

    (The Issue is not explicitly stated. )

Holding
    The court found that negligence law is applicable, and declined to apply the law of strict liability.

    (the Holding in the Case)

Rationale
  • The court adopted the reasoning of an earlier court case (Maloney), which stated that applying strict liability cases would only contribute confusion to the automobile accident problem.
  • If the cases were determined by the courts, settlement and claims adjustment procedures would become chaotic until the new rules were worked out on a case-by-case basis, and the hardships of delayed compensation would be seriously intensified. Only the Legislature, if it deems it wise to do so, can avoid such difficulties by enacting a comprehensive plan for the compensation of automobile accident victims in place of or in addition to the law of negligence.
  • The court distinguished products liability cases stating that strict liability is applicable in those cases because manufacturers, retailers and distributors of products are engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public and are an integral part of the over-all producing and marketing enterprise.

    (the Holding in the Case)

Resolution
Additional LearningLaw Analysis
    Why did the plaintiff seek to prove the defendant liable using strict liability?

    Answer- The plaintiff tried to use stict liability because the plaintiff would not have been able to prove negligence. The defendant's actions did not amount to a breach of the duty of reasonable care. The defendant took reasonable precautions, including seeing the doctor and taking appropriate medication.

    How would the case have changed if the defendant failed to see the doctor as required, or failed to take his medicine, or felt faint before driving?

    Answer- The defendant would likely have breached the duty of reasonable care, and would likely have been liable for negligence. There would have been no need for the plaintiff to attempt to apply the law of strict liability.

    Although the plaintiff was most certainly harmed by the defendant, the defendant was not liable for any of the damage. The case proves the point that not all harms are actionable.
 
 

 
 Copyright 1999-2001, LearningLaw LLC.  All rights reserved.
Terms of Use.