Bashi v. Wodarz
Decision Date | 23 May 1996 |
Docket Number | No. F022797,F022797 |
Citation | 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 635,45 Cal.App.4th 1314 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3892 Mubarak BASHI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Margie Marie WODARZ, Defendant and Respondent. |
Defendant and respondent, Margie Wodarz, was involved in a rear-end auto accident with a third party. According to the traffic collision report, respondent left the scene without stopping. A short time later, respondent was involved in a second automobile accident with the plaintiffs and appellants, Mubarak Bashi and Nasim Akhtar.
Respondent has little recollection of either event occurring. According to the traffic report, respondent engaged in some "bizarre" behavior before and after the collision with appellants. Under the heading of "Statement of Witnesses and Remarks" the traffic report contains the following remarks with respect to respondent's statement:
"...
Appellants filed a complaint for negligence. At non-binding arbitration, appellants' claims were denied. The arbitrator made the following comments in support of his decision:
Appellants timely filed a request for trial de novo. Appellants' subsequent motion to reopen discovery, supported by counsel's declaration that the defense of a sudden onset of mental illness was "a complete surprise," was denied.
Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, arguing that due to the sudden, unanticipated mental disorder, respondent was not negligent as a matter of law and that no triable issue of material fact existed with respect to the issue that respondent was afflicted by the unforeseen onset of the mental disorder. Respondent's motion was granted. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal.
On appeal from a summary judgment, "it is the task of the reviewing court to determine whether the moving party has established facts which negate the opponent's claims and whether a triable issue of material fact has been shown." (Saldana v. Globe-Weis Systems Co. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1505, 1515, 285 Cal.Rptr. 385.)
When summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendant, the defendant must either establish an affirmative defense to the cause of action or disprove at least one essential element of the cause of action. (Code Civ.Proc., § 437c, subd. (n).)
This court recently summarized the standard of review as follows:
In order to affirm the trial court's granting of the summary judgment motion at issue, we must first identify the issues framed by the pleadings. In this case, the appellants filed a simple form complaint for negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Secondly, we must determine whether the respondent's showing in the trial court established facts which negate the appellants' claim and justify a judgment in respondent's favor. At the trial court, respondent contended that due to respondent's sudden, unanticipated mental disorder, respondent was not negligent as a matter of law. Whether the sudden onset of mental illness is a defense to a negligence action in California is pivotal to the correctness of the trial court's ruling.
"California has approved the rule of Cohen v. Petty (D.C.Cir.1933) 65 F.2d 820, that as between an innocent passenger and an innocent fainting driver, the former must suffer." (Ford v. Carew & English (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 199, 203, 200 P.2d 828, citing Waters v. Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc. (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 789, 131 P.2d 588.)
Under a line of appellate authorities beginning with Waters in 1942, these cases generally hold that a driver, suddenly stricken by an illness rendering the driver unconscious, is not chargeable with negligence. (Waters v. Pacific Coast Dairy, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.App.2d at pp. 791-793, 131 P.2d 588 [ ]; Ford v. Carew & English, supra, 89 Cal.App.2d at pp. 203-204, 200 P.2d 828 [ ]; Zabunoff v. Walker (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 8, 11, 13 Cal.Rptr. 463 [ ]; Tannyhill v. Pacific Motor Trans. Co. (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 512, 520, 38 Cal.Rptr. 774 [heart attack]; Hammontree v. Jenner (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 528, 530-531, 97 Cal.Rptr. 739 [ ].)
Although the driver in the Cohen case suffered a sudden illness rendering him unconscious, the court generally stated the rule regarding the effect of a sudden illness as follows:
"It is undoubtedly the law that one who is suddenly stricken by an illness, which he had no reason to anticipate, while driving an automobile, which renders it impossible for him to control the car, is not chargeable with negligence." (Cohen v. Petty, supra, 65 F.2d at p. 821.)
Respondent admits that "no prior California decisions have decided whether the [Cohen] rule also applies when defendant suffers a sudden and unanticipated mental, as opposed to physical illness." Respondent urges this court to extend the Cohen rule to any sudden "illness," without distinction between physical and mental illness. She argues that the public policy rationale would remain the same; "i.e., as between an innocent injured party and an innocent ill driver, the innocent injured party must suffer." The basis behind the Cohen rule is related to the general concept of " 'unavoidable accident.' " (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (9th ed.) Torts, § 759, p. 98.) In California, our Supreme Court has addressed this concept in Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co. (1958) 49 Cal.2d 652, 320 P.2d 500:
In effect, the concept of unavoidable accident is predicated upon absence of fault.
After consideration of state and national case law, the rationale behind respondent's argument...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colman v. Notre Dame Convalescent Home, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:96 CV 0486(GLG).
...that an insane or mentally disordered person is civilly liable for injuries resulting from her negligence. See Bashi v. Wodarz, 45 Cal.App.4th 1314, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 641 (1996); Delahanty v. Hinckley, 799 F.Supp. 184, 187 (D.D.C.1992); C.T.W. v. B.C.G., 809 S.W.2d 788, 793 (Tex.Ct.App.19......
-
Roberts v. Lomanto
...whether the opposition of the plaintiff demonstrates the existence of a triable, material factual issue. (See Bashi v. Wodarz (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1318, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 635.) The The first amended complaint, which is the operative one, begins: "This action arises from a real estate br......
-
People v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
...Cal.App.4th at p. 1255, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 878 ), which constitutes an “objective reasonable person standard” (Bashi v. Wodarz (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1323, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 ). Accordingly, the existence of negligence ordinarily hinges on whether the pertinent person complied with that s......
-
Lowe v. California League of Prof. Baseball
...of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this posture, the trial court was presented with a circumstance illustrated by Bashi v. Wodarz (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1314, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 635. In that case, a summary judgment was reversed by the reviewing court. Relying on Varni Bros. Corp. v. Wine World,......
-
The Wide World of Torts: Reviewing Franklin and Rabin's Tort Law and Alternatives
...is suggested for the first time in the new edition. FRANKLIN and RABIN, supra note 1, at 54-55 (Note 9) (discussing Bashi v. Wodarz, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The authors ask at the end of the note whether the defendant who said she "wigged out" and was not conscious of her......