A child darting into traffic, a car crossing over into the opposing lane of traffic, uncontrolled skidding on ice into another vehicle—all of these situations may elicit the emergency doctrine as a defense to liability. This doctrine provides that those faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time for reflection, may not be held negligent if their actions are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency. It should be pleaded as an affirmative defense.1 It is most frequently interposed in motor vehicle cases. The emergency doctrine defines the duty of care to which a party should be held and not whether the party was guilty of negligence.
Where the court finds that the emergency doctrine is applicable to the evidence adduced at trial, it may charge the jury as follows (see PJI 2:l4):
A person faced with an emergency and who acts without opportunity to consider the alternatives is not negligent if (he, she) acts as a reasonably prudent person would act in the same emergency, even if it later appears that (he, she) did not make the safest choice or exercise the best judgment. A mistake in judgment or wrong choice of action is not negligence if the person is required to act quickly because of danger. This rule applies where a person is faced with a sudden condition, which could not have been reasonably anticipated, provided that the person did not cause or contribute to the emergency by (his, her) own negligence.
