Jenkins v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 22 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 54305,54305 |
| Citation | 566 N.E.2d 1244,57 Ohio App.3d 40 |
| Parties | JENKINS, Appellant, v. MORGAN, Appellee. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a driver of a vehicle is suddenly stricken by a heart attack which he has no reason to anticipate and which renders it impossible for him to control the vehicle he is driving (so that he proceeds the wrong way on a street and collides head on with plaintiff's vehicle), he is not chargeable with negligence as to such lack of control.
Sheldon D. Schecter, Cleveland, for appellant.
John C. Cubar, Cleveland, for appellee.
The plaintiff-appellant Eddie Ruth Jenkins appeals from a directed verdict against her at the close of defendant-appellee James T. Morgan's case by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in a jury trial. The trial was the consequence of a lawsuit filed by plaintiff against defendant for injuries received by plaintiff when her car and the car driven by defendant collided.
On February 14, 1986, about 4:00 p.m., plaintiff was driving her car north on Warrensville Center Road, near Cedar Road, in South Euclid. In the particular area where plaintiff was driving, Warrensville Center Road has two lanes for northbound traffic and two lanes for southbound traffic. A grass median strip divides the northbound from the southbound lanes.
As plaintiff was driving northbound, in the northbound lane immediately next to the median strip, she was confronted by defendant, who was driving southbound in the northbound lane lawfully occupied by plaintiff. Defendant's wrong-way driving caused a truck travelling immediately in front of plaintiff to swerve left over a curb and into the grass median strip. Plaintiff's car was hit head-on by defendant's car.
On May 16, 1986, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for injuries and damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff as a result of the accident. On June 7, 1986, defendant timely filed his answer to the complaint of plaintiff. Defendant denied the allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint and raised as a defense the doctrines of comparative negligence and, interestingly, assumption of the risk.
On July 22, 1987, a jury trial on this matter began which carried over to July 23, 1987.
Plaintiff testified that she saw the truck which was in the same lane and travelling in the same direction as plaintiff pull up on the median strip This testimony is undisputed.
At the trial, it was developed, and is also undisputed, that defendant suffered a massive heart attack while he was driving his car at the time and place of the collision with plaintiff. Defendant testified that as he was travelling southbound on Warrensville Center Road near Cedar, he had " * * * a funny sensation * * * " on the right side of his neck. " * * * The next thing I know I woke up at Hillcrest Hospital in the Emergency Room."
At trial, plaintiff also presented on her behalf the testimony of A.L. Grierson, M.D., by deposition read at the trial. However, the testimony of Dr. Grierson was related to the degree of injury allegedly suffered by plaintiff and is not relevant to this appeal, as demonstrated by this passage from the transcript of Dr. Grierson's deposition:
Defendant at the trial presented on his behalf the videotaped deposition of Abdalla Ezziddin, M.D. Dr. Ezziddin is a physician in private practice who is licensed to practice medicine in the states of Ohio and California and who is board certified in cardiovascular diseases and internal medicine. The testimony of Dr. Ezziddin was heard by the jury below, and was reviewed by this court, and is highlighted below.
Dr. Ezziddin's first contact with defendant occurred when Dr. Ezziddin examined defendant on February 14, 1986, in the emergency room of Hillcrest Hospital. Defendant had been taken to Hillcrest Hospital by ambulance after the collision between defendant's car and plaintiff's car.
Dr. Ezziddin stated that at the time of the examination defendant was in circulatory shock, a condition characterized by low systolic blood pressure, in this case between sixty and seventy, with a heart rate of between thirty-eight and forty beats per minute.
Dr. Ezziddin testified that an electrocardiogram of defendant at that time showed "evidence of complete heart block" of the defendant's lower two heart chambers, which of the normal heart's four heart chambers are the two responsible for circulating the blood throughout the body.
Dr. Ezziddin testified that the condition of defendant's heart at the time of the examination " * * * does not support adequate blood flow to the circulation and particularly to the brain * * *." Dr. Ezziddin indicated that the blood pressure of defendant could have been much lower when defendant was sitting up driving a car, as opposed to lying flat, such as the position occupied by defendant during this emergency room examination.
Dr. Ezziddin stated that the condition of "circulatory shock" under which defendant was suffering at the time of the examination could have caused confusion to defendant which may have impaired defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle.
Ultimately, Dr. Ezziddin's direct testimony offered the following opinion, as questioned by counsel for defendant:
Dr. Ezziddin was next cross-examined extensively by counsel for plaintiff.
Dr. Ezziddin testified that the defendant's medical history was taken at the emergency room by Dr. Ezziddin from defendant's wife and defendant himself. The defendant told Dr. Ezziddin of the circumstances immediately preceding the accident, as reflected on defendant's discharge summary:
"While he was driving on the evening of this admission, he felt sick, nauseated, and he ended up in a car accident, not knowing the exact circumstances."
Dr. Ezziddin testified that he had no personal knowledge of the period of time which elapsed between defendant's feelings of nausea and the collision with plaintiff.
Next, Dr. Ezziddin testified that defendant was most likely confused at the time of the accident, but Dr. Ezziddin admitted that the time period between defendant's nausea and subsequent confusion is also uncertain.
Moreover, Dr. Ezziddin testified that based on his experience he presumed the period of time between the nausea and confusion was short, but could not conclude this fact definitively.
Dr. Ezziddin stated that most people, using common sense, would stop an automobile which they were driving when such feelings of nausea occurred, and call for help. However, Dr. Ezziddin also stated that a person who may have "common sense" may nevertheless not stop because such a person may be confused as to his current circumstances. The essence of Dr. Ezziddin's testimony on cross-examination is demonstrated in this passage between counsel for plaintiff and Dr. Ezziddin:
At the close of all the evidence, defendant made a motion for a directed verdict based upon the following:
"The law is quite clear on this issue that even though Mr. Morgan may have been negligent in going left of center, the law of Ohio is that that negligence would be excused if he was stricken by a sudden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCall v. Wilder
...Savard v. Randall, 103 N.H. 234, 169 A.2d 276 (1961); Wallace v. Johnson, 11 N.C.App. 703, 182 S.E.2d 193 (1971); Jenkins v. Morgan, 57 Ohio App.3d 40, 566 N.E.2d 1244 (1988); Parker v. Washington, 421 P.2d 861 (Okla.1966); van der Hout v. Johnson, 251 Or. 435, 446 P.2d 99 (1968); Howle v. ......
-
Roman v. Estate of Gobbo, 2002-0285.
...reconsider the rule of Lehman that guided those decisions and declining to follow up on the Kuhn dicta. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Morgan (1988), 57 Ohio App.3d 40, 566 N.E.2d 1244, appeal not allowed (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 729, 534 N.E.2d 351; Fitas v. Estate of Baldridge (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d......
-
Fitas v. Estate of Baldridge
...when decedent fell on her, blocking her vision and preventing her from obtaining control over the vehicle. See Jenkins v. Morgan (1988), 57 Ohio App.3d 40, 566 N.E.2d 1244. Alternatively, appellant asserts that if the defense of sudden emergency is applicable, it should be abandoned in favo......
-
Shereda Walker v. Leroy Thomas
... ... anticipate. Lehman v. Haynam (1956), 164 Ohio St ... 595, at paragraph 2 of the syllabus. See also Jenkins v ... Morgan (1988), 57 Ohio App.3d 40, 44 (A directed verdict ... in favor of a driver was upheld on appeal when plaintiff ... ...