Foster v. Strutz
636 N.W.2d 104 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sudden emergency doctrine, which can excuse a defendant's otherwise negligent conduct, does not apply when the defendant has sufficient time, such as 10 to 15 seconds, to assess the situation and make a judgment call before acting. A sudden emergency requires a response that is instantaneous or very close to it.
Facts:
- Valerie Foster was standing next to a pickup truck in a parking lot where a vehicle owned by Vince Ankrum and driven by Cassandra Strutz was also parked.
- A group of three to five men approached the Ankrum vehicle and began yelling at and striking Ankrum through the open passenger window.
- Ankrum pulled Strutz, who was in the driver's seat, down into his lap to shield her from the assault.
- During the altercation, a fist came through the driver's window and hit the gearshift, which Ankrum heard click into what he believed was reverse gear.
- Approximately 10 to 15 seconds after the altercation began, Strutz stepped on the accelerator, believing the car was in drive and that she would move forward.
- Because the car was in reverse, it moved backward, crushing Foster's foot between the rear bumper of Ankrum's car and the side of the pickup as she tried to climb into its bed.
Procedural Posture:
- Valerie Foster sued Vince Ankrum and Cassandra Strutz in district court for personal injuries.
- Ankrum and Strutz filed a third-party petition against one of the assailants.
- At trial, the district court denied the defendants' request for a jury instruction on the sudden emergency doctrine.
- The jury returned a verdict for Foster, attributing 55% of the fault to Ankrum and 45% to Strutz.
- Ankrum, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the district court, ruling that the sudden emergency instruction should have been given, and remanded for a new trial.
- Foster, as appellee at the Court of Appeals, sought further review from the Supreme Court of Iowa, which was granted.
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 a situation where a driver has 10 to 15 seconds to react to an assault on their passenger before accelerating the vehicle qualify as a 'sudden emergency' requiring a jury instruction on that defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Larson, J.
No. A situation where a driver has 10 to 15 seconds to react does not qualify as a sudden emergency. The doctrine of sudden emergency is reserved for events that require an almost instantaneous response, and the time available to the defendants was sufficient to assess the situation and make a judgment. The court defines a sudden emergency as 'an unforeseen combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action' or 'a sudden or unexpected occasion for action.' The 10-to-15-second period provided the defendants with enough time to deliberate, distinguishing this situation from true emergencies like an unexpected patch of ice or a sudden vehicle malfunction. To apply the doctrine here would expand it beyond its appropriate scope, especially given that the doctrine has faced considerable criticism and has been abandoned in some jurisdictions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the sudden emergency doctrine in Iowa by establishing a temporal boundary. By holding that a 10-to-15-second reaction time is too long to constitute a 'sudden' emergency, the court makes it more difficult for future defendants to claim the defense. This ruling provides clearer guidance to trial courts on when a sudden emergency instruction is warranted and reflects the judiciary's skepticism toward a doctrine that can excuse negligent conduct. The case serves as a precedent that quantifies, to a degree, the immediacy required for an event to be considered a legally cognizable sudden emergency.
Unlock the full brief for Foster v. Strutz