Is Sudden Loss Of Consciousness Due To Low Blood Sugar A Defense?
26 Jul 2007
In Florida and in many other states a defendant driver in a civil action arising out of an automobile accident is permitted to allege and prove that a sudden, unforeseen loss of consciousness from any cause was to blame for the happening of the accident.
Defendants with known diabetic conditions have attempted to avoid legal liability by raising this defense. Other defendants have simply alleged that low blood sugar, occurring for the first time, caused a sudden loss of consciousness.
In most cases, the discovery process of the litigation uncovers a rather complicated medical history that reveals similar events or noncompliance with a doctor's recommendations.
The issue is normally presented to a jury after extensive medical testimony that covers not only the specifics of the defendant's history but also the ways in which low blood sugar affects the body. For example, medical testimony usually explains the warning signs of low blood sugar and the lead time a driver would have until loss of consciousness occurs.
At times, defendants have sought a summary judgment on the strength of this defense. Essentially they have asked the Court to rule that, as a matter of law, they were entitled to a complete defense because their loss of consciousness was unforeseeable.
A recent Opinion of a Florida Appellate Court determined that it was error to have granted a summary judgment to a defendant driver claiming that he experienced a sudden and unforeseeable loss of consciousness prior to the collision.
24 Fla. L. Weekly D2235a
ANN J. SCHURER, Appellant, v. KENNETH ALLEN KOCH, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 98-04378. Opinion filed September 22, 1999. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County.
(WHATLEY, Judge.) Ann J. Schurer appeals the final summary judgment entered in favor of Kenneth Allen Koch in her negligence action against him for damages caused by his rear-ending her automobile while she was stopped at a red light. We reverse.
In his motion for summary judgment, Koch alleged as a complete defense that he had experienced a sudden and unforeseeable loss of consciousness prior to the collision. See Tropical Exterminators, Inc. v. Murray, 171 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (``It is well settled that negligence is not chargeable against the operator of a motor vehicle who, while driving, suffers a sudden loss of consciousness from an unforeseen cause.''). Under the facts of this case, the viability of this defense was a question for the trier of fact to resolve.
In support of his motion for summary judgment, Koch filed his and Schurer's depositions, as well as their answers to interrogatories. He presented the trial court with no affidavits or depositions from members of the medical community. Further, in his deposition, Koch revealed that he had a long history of migraine and retinal problems. Koch's self-serving statements in his answers to interrogatories that ``I was unconscious before impact; I had passed out because of low blood sugar. It is the first time it has ever happened,'' were not sufficient to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and the entry of summary judgment in his favor. Compare Wingate v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 480 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), in which the motion for summary judgment asserting that the driver lost control of the vehicle when he suffered an unexpected heart attack was supported by affidavits from physicians which confirmed that the driver died of a heart attack which he had no reason to expect.
Accordingly, this matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. (FULMER, A.C.J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., (SENIOR) JUDGE, Concur.)
* * *
