Bjorndal v. Weitman
2008 Ore. LEXIS 275, 184 P.3d 1115, 344 Or. 470 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'emergency instruction,' which suggests a modified standard of care for a person acting in a sudden peril, is an inaccurate and confusing statement of negligence law and should not be given to a jury in ordinary vehicle negligence cases.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Bjorndal was driving on a highway, looking for her father whose car had broken down.
- Defendant Weitman was following Bjorndal's vehicle.
- Bjorndal spotted her father on the right side of the road and began to slow down.
- Weitman saw Bjorndal's father waving and, assuming a hazard, glanced away from the road ahead for a few seconds to scan the horizon.
- When Weitman returned his eyes to the road, he saw that Bjorndal's van had decelerated rapidly, from approximately 50 mph to 10 mph.
- Bjorndal, intending to turn into a snowpark on the left, signaled and began steering to the left.
- To avoid a collision, Weitman applied his brakes and simultaneously decided to steer left to pass Bjorndal.
- As Weitman moved left, Bjorndal also turned left, and Weitman's vehicle collided with her van.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Bjorndal sued Defendant Weitman for negligence in an Oregon circuit court (trial court).
- At trial, the court gave the jury an 'emergency instruction' at Weitman's request and over Bjorndal's objection.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that Weitman had not been negligent.
- Bjorndal, as appellant, appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in giving the instruction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, with Weitman as appellee.
- Bjorndal petitioned for, and was granted, review by the Supreme Court of Oregon to consider the continuing validity of the emergency instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does giving the 'emergency instruction' to a jury in a standard vehicle negligence case constitute a reversible error because it misstates the law of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Balmer, J.
Yes, giving the 'emergency instruction' constitutes a reversible error because it is an inaccurate and confusing supplement to the standard instructions on negligence. The court reasoned that the historical justifications for the instruction, such as mitigating the harshness of contributory negligence and negligence per se doctrines, have been superseded by modern changes in tort law. The standard negligence instruction, which requires a person to act with reasonable care under the circumstances, is sufficient to encompass the conditions of a sudden emergency. The emergency instruction introduces confusing and legally incorrect concepts like making the 'wisest choice' or a choice a reasonable person 'might' make, which misstates the single standard of reasonable care and is likely to mislead the jury into applying a lower standard. Therefore, the instruction should not be given in vehicle negligence cases.
Analysis:
This decision effectively abolishes the use of the common law emergency doctrine and its corresponding jury instruction in ordinary vehicle negligence cases in Oregon. By doing so, the court simplifies the legal standard, ensuring that juries focus on the single, flexible test of 'reasonable care under the circumstances.' This ruling prevents defendants from benefiting from a special instruction that could be perceived as lowering the standard of care during a crisis. The decision aligns Oregon with a growing number of jurisdictions that have concluded the standard negligence instruction is sufficient to account for emergency situations without confusing the jury.
