Defeating Sudden Emergency Doctrine Car Accident Defenses

People who cause car accidents don’t want to pay for the consequences out of their own pockets, and neither do their insurers. Too often, we see people claim that a sudden emergency occurred to try to escape responsibility. This is cowardly—and it’s rarely a viable car accident lawsuit defense.

An attorney representing an at-fault driver will attempt to apply the sudden emergency doctrine to excuse the person’s negligent behavior, leaving those harmed without compensation to recover damages. Critics of the law argue that the doctrine is often unnecessary, redundant, and can mislead or prejudice a jury. We agree. Our attorneys defeat sudden emergency doctrine defenses by challenging subjective language and establishing the other driver’s faulty actions. Before you let someone claim the accident resulted from an emergency behind the wheel, contact the attorneys at Miller Law Group.

The Sudden Emergency Doctrine is a legal principle that can essentially excuse a person from liability for an act that would otherwise be considered negligent. When applied to car accidents, the doctrine recognizes that when a person faces an unexpected and imminent danger while behind the wheel, they should not be expected to adhere to the same standard of care as someone who isn’t under duress.

Three Requirements of Using the Doctrine

For the Sudden Emergency Doctrine to apply, the case must meet three criteria:

1. A sudden, unforeseeable emergency must occur
2. The defendant could not have caused or contributed to the emergency
3. Despite causing an accident, the driver acted reasonably under the circumstances

When an accident occurs under predictable or likely circumstances, was caused by the driver’s negligence, or resulted from an unreasonable avoidance tactic, the driver cannot use the sudden emergency defense.

If, when trying to miss a deer or an obstruction on the road, you collide with another driver, that moment before the crash might qualify as a sudden emergency. But the suddenness (does the location hold the potential for wildlife?), your motivation to swerve (to avoid harm to yourself, not to protect the deer), and whether you acted within reason (did you overcorrect?) are all subjective.

In fact, the legal principles behind the sudden emergency doctrine rarely apply. Our attorneys estimate that a qualifying event applies in one case out of every few hundred. Yet, sudden emergency defenses are attempted in jurisdictions that recognize this argument, including North Carolina courts.

You might be wondering why anyone still uses the sudden emergency doctrine when it’s mostly frowned upon. But it’s a tactic from insurance adjusters’ playbooks to try to convince you that a claim isn’t worth pursuing. Raising this defense in court can also impact jurors’ reasoning, implanting an assumption that the situation qualified as sudden, without also considering how the driver’s negligence contributed.

Legally, a brake failure doesn’t qualify as a sudden emergency when neglected maintenance made the issue likely. Similarly, a vehicle skidding across icy lanes isn’t a sudden emergency when sleet and dropping temperatures increased the potential for traction loss. If negligence played a role in creating the situation, it doesn’t qualify as a sudden emergency.

When we see clients facing the sudden emergency defense, we challenge the language of those terms, demonstrate the defendant’s contribution to the crisis, and question the definition of “reasonable actions” using evidence and precedent.

Challenging “Sudden” and “Unforeseeable”

An unforeseeable circumstance is one that cannot be predicted. An animal on a roadway near a wildlife refuge or popular crossings is not unexpected. Likewise, drivers should expect slippery roads when the temperatures drop near freezing, and they should understand that construction zones may cause irregular lane changes. While a defense may present these situations as unavoidable, we’ll investigate the roadway elements, trends, and driving patterns to show the circumstances were not unimaginable and the driver should have been prepared.

Proving a Defendant Contributed to the Emergency

Texting and driving can force a person’s attention or focus off the road and delay their reaction, and speeding prevents the driver from stopping suddenly. When someone commits these acts, they weren’t caught in an emergency—they caused it. Any driver who creates a sudden emergency cannot use the doctrine as a defense. In fact, their admission that a medical event or avoidance maneuver preceded the crash can prove them liable under North Carolina’s car accident laws.

Our attorneys will gather eyewitness accounts, black box data, cell phone records, medical records, and other evidence to show the driver’s negligence created circumstances where a crash was likely. Here are some of the situations we’ll investigate to negate sudden emergency doctrine defenses:

• Driving distracted turns everyday traffic situations into an unavoidable crisis
• Disregarding traffic signals creates highly dangerous situations on otherwise safe roadways
• Driving despite known or suspected health issues presents predictable risks that a person could become incapacitated behind the wheel
• Neglecting vehicle maintenance creates a foreseeable emergency when brakes or other systems fail

Questioning the Definition of “Reasonable”

People using the sudden emergency doctrine as a car accident lawsuit defense must establish that they acted reasonably during a crisis, despite the resulting accident. The term “reasonable” is subjective, and our attorneys understand how to show that a person was not acting how someone else in a similar situation would have.

We’ll leverage accident photos, skid marks, and reconstruction experts to show that someone swerved recklessly or braked excessively, or that they had sufficient time to complete alternative safe maneuvers but chose not to. By highlighting the choices that a prudent driver would have made in a similar situation, we can show that the driver who hit you was not acting reasonably.

Gathering documents and physical evidence of a crash early is essential, and so is finding legal examples to establish precedence. When claims contain subjective elements, attorneys can use North Carolina sudden emergency case law to illustrate difficult concepts, like “sudden,” “reasonable,” and similar terms. Legal precedence allows us to argue that a driver’s conduct fails to meet the strict requirements for the defense.

In Banks v. McGee, the defendant tried to instruct the jury to consider a sudden emergency, but the courts disagreed due to the circumstances of the collision. The defendant lost control of her vehicle on a rainy day after striking a puddle on a road in an area that she was aware of water pooling. The defendant should have reasonably known that the water-covered road held the potential for hydroplaning and therefore could not say the circumstance was “unanticipated.” This is just one example of how sudden emergency case law can help support a plaintiff’s claim.

Every time we defeat these car accident lawsuit defenses, we contribute to the growing case law that helps fellow attorneys continue upholding the law. The sudden emergency defense shouldn’t give drivers a free pass for acting recklessly. If you’ve been harmed by someone who claims a medical event or unforeseen roadway obstruction caused a crash, please contact Miller Law Group right away. We’ll investigate, gather evidence, and fight for the compensation you deserve.