Tort Law

Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.

45 Wis. 2d 536, 173 N.W.2d 619

Facts

• Mrs Veith was driving her automobile on a public highway.
• While driving, she experienced a serious mental delusion.
• She believed that God was controlling the vehicle.
• She also believed that the car might be capable of flying or that supernatural forces would guide it safely.
• She crossed the centre line and collided with Breunig’s vehicle.
• Breunig suffered injuries and sued Mrs Veith and her insurer.
• The defendants argued that Mrs Veith had suffered a sudden mental incapacity that made negligence impossible.
• Evidence showed that she had previously experienced unusual thoughts, visions or delusions.
• The jury found her negligent.
• The case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine how insanity or sudden mental incapacity affects the reasonable-person standard.

• Whether mental illness generally excuses negligent conduct.
• Whether a sudden and unforeseeable mental incapacity should be treated like a sudden physical illness.
• Whether Mrs Veith had warning of her condition before the collision.

• As a general rule, insanity or mental deficiency does not lower the objective standard of reasonable care.
• A person suffering from mental illness is ordinarily liable for negligent conduct in the same manner as another adult.
• A narrow exception may apply where:
o the person is suddenly overcome by a mental incapacity;
o the incapacity prevents understanding or controlling the conduct;
o there was no prior warning or foreknowledge; and
o the episode is comparable to a sudden heart attack or seizure.
• A defendant who knew or should have known that such an episode might occur may be negligent in choosing to drive.
• The party relying on sudden incapacity bears the burden of establishing it.

• Mrs Veith’s delusion may have made her incapable of controlling the vehicle at the moment of collision.
• That alone did not automatically remove liability.
• The critical question was whether the episode was entirely sudden and unforeseeable.
• Evidence of earlier visions and unusual beliefs suggested that she may have had warning of mental instability.
• If she knew or reasonably should have known that her condition could affect driving, operating the car created an unreasonable danger.
• The jury was entitled to conclude that the mental episode was not wholly without warning.
• The court maintained the general objective standard partly because innocent road users should not bear losses caused by a person unable to drive safely.
• It nevertheless recognised that complete and unforeseeable incapacity differs from ordinary poor judgment or continuing mental illness.
• The exception was therefore confined to genuinely sudden episodes for which no precaution could reasonably have been taken.

• The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Breunig.
• It recognised a narrow defence for sudden, unforeseeable mental incapacity comparable to sudden physical illness.
• However, the evidence supported the jury’s finding that Mrs Veith had prior warning of her condition.
• She was therefore liable for negligent driving.
• Mental illness generally remains no defence where the defendant could reasonably have anticipated impairment.