A Washington State appeals court has overturned a lower court’s decision to dismiss a negligence lawsuit against a doctor who caused a car accident after suffering a stroke. The appeals court ruled that there are genuine questions about whether the doctor’s stroke caused the crash and whether the stroke was foreseeable.
The case involves Erin Brant, who was driving with her child when her vehicle was rear-ended by a car driven by Dr. James Shaw. Brant sued Dr. Shaw, alleging negligence. Dr. Shaw claimed he suffered a sudden, unforeseen stroke, which he argued was a complete defense to the negligence claim. The trial court agreed and granted Dr. Shaw’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
What Happened?
The accident occurred on March 7, 2022, in Spokane, Washington. Brant was stopped at a red light when Dr. Shaw’s vehicle struck hers. It was later determined that Dr. Shaw had suffered a stroke.
In response to the lawsuit, Dr. Shaw asserted that his stroke was an “unforeseen medical emergency” that rendered him unable to control his vehicle. He presented medical evidence, including declarations from his doctors, stating that they did not believe he was in imminent danger of a stroke and had not advised him to stop driving.
Brant, however, argued that there were issues of fact about whether Dr. Shaw’s stroke caused the collision and whether the stroke was foreseeable. She presented a declaration from another doctor, Dr. Merkler, who stated that Dr. Shaw had a history of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), often called “warning strokes,” and that he had not taken his prescribed medication for atrial fibrillation promptly, which may have increased his risk of a stroke.
The Court’s Decision
The appeals court agreed with Brant, finding that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment. The court’s analysis focused on two key issues: causation and foreseeability.
Causation
The appeals court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Shaw’s stroke caused the collision. The court pointed out that Dr. Shaw had admitted he didn’t remember much about the accident, including the moments leading up to it. His memory of the event was vague. This, the court reasoned, created uncertainty about when Dr. Shaw lost consciousness and whether that loss of consciousness was the direct cause of the accident.
The court cited precedent, including cases where courts have examined the issue of sudden loss of consciousness in car accidents, and how it relates to negligence claims.
Foreseeability
The appeals court also concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Shaw’s stroke was foreseeable. The court considered the factors outlined in the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which include the number and frequency of past episodes of incapacitation, the circumstances of those episodes, the extent to which medical treatment can control the underlying medical problem, and any advice the driver’s physician has provided.
The court noted that Dr. Shaw had a history of TIAs, was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, and was prescribed medication to manage the condition. A doctor provided an opinion that the stroke could have been prevented if the medication was taken as prescribed. The court found that these facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to Brant, raised a question about whether Dr. Shaw should have anticipated the possibility of a stroke, even though his doctors had not specifically told him not to drive.
What Happens Next?
Because the appeals court reversed the summary judgment, the case is now sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. This means the case will continue, and the parties will likely engage in further discovery and potentially a trial, where a jury will decide the factual issues.