Kellogg v. Finnegan
823 N.W.2d 454
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Kellogg drove eastbound; Finnegan's car jumped the median, causing a collision and Finnegan allegedly lost consciousness before impact.
- Dispute whether loss of consciousness was due to a seizure or sleep; medical staff suspected seizure; hospital diagnosed seizure-causing MVA.
- Respondent had no prior seizure; later brain atrophy diagnosed and two subsequent seizures; driving prohibited.
- Prior sleep incidents in 2006; respondent had sleep deprivation and was prescribed Celexa and Trazodone for depression/sleep issues; warned of drowsiness and reduced alertness.
- Medication instructions prohibited alcohol; respondent drank alcohol and did not follow prescription; he slept about 20 hours before the collision.
- District court granted summary judgment for foreseeability of seizure being unlikely and for the overall foreseeability issue; court found some sleep foreseeability argument not close.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was foreseeability of seizure a triable issue? | Kellogg argues foreseeability of seizure was possible given medical history and symptoms. | Finnegan contends no prior seizure and no medical link showing foreseeability. | Seizure foreseeability not established; affirmed. |
| Was foreseeability of falling asleep a triable issue? | Kellogg argues sleep-induced loss of consciousness was foreseeable from sleep deprivation, meds, and behavior. | Finnegan argues no basis to foresee falling asleep under the circumstances. | Triable issue for sleep foreseeability; reversed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2011) (foreseeability test; not required to foresee exact injury)
- Foss v. Kincade, 766 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 2009) (summary judgment standards; foreseeability not always jury question)
- Whiteford ex rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 582 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1998) (foreseeability scope; danger must be within ordinary prudence)
- Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2010) (duty depends on foreseeability of injury)
- Louis v. Louis, 636 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 2001) (duty, breach, causation elements; threshold duty analysis)
- Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 816 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 2012) (duty is a threshold question; foreseeability review)
- DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1997) (summary judgment standard; evidence must be probative)
- Bushnell v. Bushnell, 131 A. 432 (Conn. 1925) (driving long-distance foreseeability considerations)
- Hardgrove v. Bade, 252 N.W. 334 (Minn. 1934) (long driving experiences as foreseeability context)