Broward Personal Injury Attorneys: Loss of Consciousness While Driving
Negligence in Motor Vehicle Accidents Where Defendant Involuntarily Loses Control Due to an Unexpected Loss in Capacity or Consciousness
As a general rule, the operator of an automobile or other vessel, who unexpectedly loses consciousness or becomes incapacitated, is not chargeable with negligence as a result of his or her loss of control. It is not even simple negligence if one has a sudden
attack, loses control of his car, and as a result causes an accident if he or she had no premonition or warning. To establish the defense of sudden and unexpected loss of capacity or consciousness, the defendant must prove each of the following:
1. The defendant suffered a loss of consciousness or capacity.
2. The loss of consciousness or capacity occurred before the defendant's purportedly
negligent conduct.
3. The loss of consciousness was sudden.
4. The loss of consciousness or capacity was neither foreseen or foreseeable.
In Abreu v. F.E. Development Recycling, Inc., et al., the driver of a motor vehicle suffered a brain aneurism and lost consciousness causing a collision which injured the Plaintiff. Defendants in the action filed a motion for summary judgment based upon an affidavit from a medical expert that purported that “it would have been impossible for the driver to know prior to the accident that he an intercranial aneurism.” The trial court granted Defendants motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. The appellate court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact relating to whether or not Defendant driver’s loss of consciousness was foreseeable, how suddenly he lost consciousness, and whether he had any premonition or warning. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate.
The trial court record indicated that there was medical documentation indicating that the Defendant driver suffered from a vascular disease and that he was not receiving proper care because he did not follow medical recommendations for medication and to stop smoking. Another medical report submitted to the trial court indicated that Defendant driver had a history of an aneurysm and that it was recommended that driver have an angiography due to “a known history of cerebral aneurysm.” Furthermore, on the day of the accident in question, Defendant driver had a headache for several hours preceding his loss of consciousness and reported that his head was spinning. The medical records indicated that Defendant driver tried to drive home but started having blurry vision that impaired ability to see and that he felt he may pass out.
A motion for summary judgment alleges that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved by the trier of fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. This evidence of Defendant driver’s medical history and symptoms which occurred on the date of the collision creates a genuine issue fact of whether or not the Defendant driver’s aneurysm was foreseeable. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate.
