62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820
On December 14, 1930, Jeanette Cohen, a retired school teacher, rode as a guest in an automobile operated by John Petty, her real estate agent of several years.1 Petty collected Cohen and her sister from their home pursuant to a prior engagement and drove them to his house, where his wife joined the group.2 The party then proceeded through Washington to Silver Spring and out the Colesville Pike.3 After passing the Country Club, they approached the area near Four Corners some five or six miles from Silver Spring.4
At that location the car suddenly swerved from the wide concrete road, struck the abutment of a culvert, and ran into the bank.5 Cohen and her sister were thrown through the roof onto the ground. Cohen received permanent injuries from the occurrence.6
Cohen, who had never driven a car, testified that the speed immediately before the accident was nearer forty-five miles an hour.7 Her sister estimated the speed at between thirty-five and forty miles an hour.8 Cohen further stated that approximately one minute before the crash she heard Petty exclaim to his wife that he felt sick.9 She then heard his wife respond in a frightened voice by asking what was the matter.10
Petty's wife testified that they were traveling at a moderate rate when Petty suddenly said he felt sick.11 She looked over and saw that he had fainted, with his head fallen back and his hands off the wheel.12 She grabbed the wheel with both hands but could recall nothing else until she awoke in a strange automobile on the road.13 Petty himself stated that he had never fainted before and believed himself to be in good health on the day in question.14 He explained that after a late breakfast and no lunch he suddenly felt ill and lost consciousness without time to react.15
Four eyewitnesses, all occupants of the car, provided testimony at trial.16 The trial judge gave binding instructions to the jury.17 Cohen appealed from the resulting judgment to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.18
Whether the trial court was justified in taking the case from the jury under the circumstances shown by the evidence?19
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.20
Yes. In the present case the positive evidence is all to the effect that defendant did not know and had no reason to think he would be subject to an attack such as overcame him.21
Hence negligence cannot be predicated in this case upon defendant’s recklessness in driving an automobile when he knew or should have known of the possibility of an accident from such an event as occurred.22
As the plaintiff wholly failed to show any actionable negligence prior to the time the car left the road, or causing or contributing to that occurrence, and as the defendant’s positive and uncontradicted evidence shows that the loss of control was due to defendant’s sudden illness, it follows the action of the lower court was right.2324
Even if plaintiff’s own evidence tended more strongly than it does to imply some act of negligence, it would be insufficient to sustain a verdict and judgment upon proof such as the defendant offered here of undisputed facts, for in such a case the inference must yield to uncontradicted evidence of actual events.25
The action of the lower court was right.