J. The Emergency Doctrine In Automotive Cases

• Jurisdiction: New York

J. The Emergency Doctrine in Automotive Cases

The emergency doctrine reduces the level of care required by a driver confronted by a sudden and unforeseen circumstance that leaves no time for thought. The courts recognize that reasonable care in this circumstance differs from reasonable care under normal driving conditions. Thus, at trial the driver confronted with an emergency is held to a lower standard of care, assuming that he or she did not create the emergency.⁷³⁸

A defendant must plead the emergency doctrine in the answer as an affirmative defense to raise it at trial.⁷³⁹ Under the emergency doctrine, the trial court must determine as a threshold matter of law if sufficient facts exist to establish a "qualifying emergency."⁷⁴⁰ If a defendant driver reasonably anticipated that he or she might hit something and continued, then the emergency doctrine will not apply.⁷⁴¹

The emergency doctrine does not apply when a defendant partially creates it.⁷⁴² Any situation that a defendant creates does not abrogate the duty to maintain a safe distance from the car in front of him or her and see what could be seen.⁷⁴³

--------

Notes:

^[738] Rivera v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 322, 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d 629 (1991); Caristo v. Sanzone, 96 N.Y.2d 172, 726 N.Y.S.2d 334 (2001).

^[739] See Suitor v. Boivin, 219 A.D.2d 799, 631 N.Y.S.2d 960 (4th Dep't 1995) (finding that emergency doctrine was an affirmative defense that must be pled in answer); CPLR 3018.

^[740] See Caristo, 96 N.Y.2d at 174–75.

^[741] See id. (reversing trial verdict and dismissing emergency doctrine argument when driver knew of weather conditions before encountering ice); Carson v. De Lorenzo, 238 A.D.2d 790, 657 N.Y.S.2d 469 (3d Dep't 1997) (affirming denial of request to charge the emergency doctrine when defendant created condition by speeding and consciously deciding to turn into the left lane).

^[742] Burke v. Kreger Truck Renting Co., 272 A.D.2d 494, 708 N.Y.S.2d 430 (2d Dep't 2000) (affirming a grant of summary judgment to plaintiff in the face of an emergency doctrine argument when defendant created the alleged emergency by following too closely); Taylor v. Daniels, 244 A.D.2d 176, 664 N.Y.S.2d 6 (1st Dep't 1997) (refusing the emergency doctrine when defendant's vehicle was following too closely).

^[743] See Campanella v. Moore, 266 A.D.2d 423, 699 N.Y.S.2d 76 (2d Dep't 1999); Pappas v. Opitz, 262 A.D.2d 471, 692 N.Y.S.2d 127 (2d Dep't 1999).