StandardOfCare_ReasonablePrudentPerson_Breunig_v_AmericanFamilyInsCo by aiowmnyv


									Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co., Supreme court of Wisconsin, 1970 Is Erma not liable because of her insane delusions? Issue Reasoning Rule
A man can not be held liable

(1) On her way from driving her husband to work, Erma Veith caused a head on collision with a truck. (2) Just before the accident, she believed that GOD was driving the car, and when she saw the truck coming, the pressed the gas so that she can fly like batman and avoid hitting it.

The case was tried based on the “insanity defense”. Insanity is not always a defense. Not all forms of insanity vitiate responsibility. The mental illness or hallucination must be such as to the person’s ability to understand and appreciate the duty which rests upon him.

For conduct He is incapable of avoiding and

Which incapacity was unknown to him

(Never mind the Dr. testimony) Her special relationship with GOD should have given her plenty warning and knowledge that would lead her to believe that hallucinations would occur as she is driving the car.

Prior to an accident

(3) A psychiatrist testified that Erma was suffering from “schizophrenic reaction, reaction type, acute”. (4) She said that she had no knowledge or forewarning that had the illness. (5) It turns out that Erma believed that she had a special connection with GOD! She was the chosen one.

Held Procedure P argues D argues

Judgment affirmed. P sued Erma Veith’s insurance company for personal injuries. Jury returned verdict for P. and D appeals.

To top