How and when a judge can charge a jury on the sudden emergency doctrine in motor vehicle cases was the focus of two recent Conn. Superior Court decisions. In one, the court ruled that the doctrine is not an affirmative defense and need not be specifically pleaded as a new matter for a judge to charge a jury with the doctrine. That decision upheld a lower court ruling that denied the plaintiff's post-trial motions after the jury found the defendant not negligent after being charged with the doctrine.
June 21, 1999 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
How and when a judge can charge a jury on the sudden emergency doctrine in motor vehicle cases was the focus of two recent Superior Court decisions.
In Leahy v. McClain PICS Case No. 99-1154 (Pa. Super. June 11, 1999) Hudock, J. (13 pages), the court ruled that the sudden emergency doctrine is not an affirmative defense and need not be specifically pleaded as a new matter for a judge to charge a jury with the doctrine.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
