535 P.2d 1034 (Alaska 1975).
Chief Justice Rabinowitz delivered opinion
Facts:
- Appellee Sibert was stopped in vehicle in line at bank window in Anchorage, appellant Mary Wilson was behind him.
- Car in front of Sibert unexpectedly starting back up
- Sibert throws car into reverse and backs into Wilson's car
- fender goes into wheel, rendering car immobile
- Appellee Sibert did not use his horn or look behind him before backing up, only became aware of car there when he hit it
Did the trial court err in 1. denying motions for directed verdict on issue of liability and did they further err in 2. giving a sudden emergency instruction to the jury?
Holding: No.
Reasoning:
Wilson claims "total absence" of care shows Sibert didn't exercise care toward her and that jury couldn't find otherwise
Court says:
- Issue 1: Appellant's position doesn't take into account the speed at which a person in an emergency may act
- Law requires same negligence test in emergency situations (i.e., the standard of conduct of a reasonable person under the same circumstances)
- In an emergency conduct that may otherwise be unreasonable becomes reasonable
- that appellee failed to show normal care is proof of the emergency situation, he had an "apparent need to act almost instantaneously"
- Issue 2: Looking at other court decisions, ct determines it is predominantly accepted that it is not prejudicial error for trial ct to give "superfluous" sudden emergency instructions
- No evidence that giving the emergency instructions impropertly influenced the jury
No comments:
Post a Comment