Being faced by a sudden danger of a pedestrian suddenly darting out into traffic, or another vehicle’s failure to yield can be terrifying. Often divers in these situations are unable to prevent a crash from occurring. Claims arising from these situations are often argued under the common law’s “emergency doctrine.”
Being faced by a sudden danger of a pedestrian suddenly darting out into traffic, or another vehicle’s failure to yield can be terrifying. Often divers in these situations are unable to prevent a crash from occurring. Claims arising from these situations are often argued under the common law’s “emergency doctrine.”
The emergency doctrine is a common law defense that can be used to negate the negligence of a party when they are faced with a sudden or unforeseen condition that is not brought about by their own negligence. In an automobile accident, the driver of the vehicle who had little time to react will often make this argument. Whether a party is successful under the doctrine depends on whether they acted reasonably when confronted with the emergency. The reasonableness of the driver is judged by what a reasonable person would do under the same or similar circumstances.
In arguing the driver acted reasonable, there is a standard of vigilance that must be met. This is because it is assumed that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would have been acting vigilantly to avoid any accident. While lawfully proceeding with the proper lane and speed of traffic is a good start to proving vigilance, the requirement does not stop there. For a party to dispose all liability, New York State law requires proof that the driver took reasonable care to avoid the accident. The 2008 case of Dawley v. McCumber illustrated that point when the court held a driver had the duty to take reasonable and prudent action to avoid an accident when a car crossed over into on-coming-traffic.
But what happens when drivers have little time to react? The courts have addressed these situations by granting summary judgment in cases when drivers can establish they only had an “instant”, a “second”, or “only seconds” to react to the other driver’s sudden and unforeseen actions. In the 2016 case of Chen v. Heart Transit, the court granted summary judgment after the driver had no more than one second to react to the defendant’s vehicle. While the courts seem to have set the standard for summary judgment at 2 or 3 seconds to react, longer instances may raise a question of fact requiring a trial. If in the pleadings, the party sets forth a factual scenario in which even after a longer period of time they were unable to avoid the accident, the court may still grant summary judgment. Facts such as speed and distance traveled are factors that have been considered in New York courts.
Overall, if a driver is involved in an accident caused by a sudden event, it is important that they provide in their pleadings that they acted reasonably and vigilantly to avoid the accident. Simply pleading that the other driver was extremely negligent may not be enough to be awarded summary judgment. If a party’s pleadings accurately and effectively show that they were placed in a sudden emergency and acted vigilantly to avoid it, they may be able to avoid the high cost of going to trial.
If you are involved in an automobile accident caused by a sudden event it is important that you get legal advice immediately. The law office at McGuire & Peláez P.C. is comprised of experienced personal injury lawyers. For more information or to schedule a consultation, call our Long Island personal injury law office at 631-348-1702 or fill out our contact form.
Send Us An Email