For the most part, driving is predictable. Driving laws mean that the majority of drivers will stop at red lights, turn carefully onto another road, and stay in their lane to avoid an accident. When accidents do occur, it can be easy to show negligence if it’s possible to show the driver made a mistake or didn’t follow the law. However, the sudden emergency doctrine can be applicable in some situations and can make it more challenging to prove negligence in a car accident case.
What is the Sudden Emergency Doctrine?
The sudden emergency doctrine covers incidents where a driver is faced with a situation they did not cause and must react quickly, which can end up causing an accident. If the doctrine applies to a case, the driver may not be held liable for the accident, so the victims will not be able to obtain compensation for the accident from them. However, proving negligence despite emergency claims is possible and can enable the victim to get the compensation they need.
Times When the Doctrine May be Applicable
The doctrine can apply anytime a driver must handle an unexpected situation while driving. If a child runs into the road and the driver has to swerve to avoid them, the resulting accident may not be there fault. There have also been cases of drivers having a sudden health emergency, such as a seizure, while driving. If the driver has never had a similar medical emergency before, the doctrine may apply. If the driver has to stop suddenly because of another driver’s actions, they may not be able to be held liable for the resulting accident.
Proving Negligence
While the sudden emergency doctrine can apply in a number of different situations, it is not always applicable, and there are situations where it is possible to prove negligence. If the emergency was not sudden or unavoidable, the driver may be able to be held liable for the resulting accident. If the driver’s own actions contributed to the emergency, it may be possible to prove negligence. An example of this is when a vehicle starts hydroplaning and hits another car. The hydroplaning could be due to negligence, so the doctrine may not apply. If they had a history of seizures and were not supposed to be driving, it is also possible to prove negligence.
Why the Doctrine Matters for Claims
When a victim of a car accident files a claim for compensation, they may not be owed compensation if the other driver is found to be at fault. If this doctrine applies to the case, the other driver will not be held responsible for the resulting accident, so the victim may not get compensation. On the other hand, if negligence can be proven, the victim should still be able to get the compensation they need to cover all of their accident-related expenses and medical bills.
If you’ve been involved in a car accident due to a sudden stop or other reaction by the driver, the sudden emergency doctrine may apply. However, there may be defenses against this to help the victim of the accident obtain compensation for their injuries. It is a good idea to schedule a consultation with a lawyer to learn more about this and when it may apply.