Jones v. Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago, Ill.
246 La. 921, 1964 La. LEXIS 2821, 169 So. 2d 50 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver who is confronted with a sudden emergency not of their own making is not negligent if they choose a course of action that a reasonably prudent person might have taken under the circumstances, even if that choice, in hindsight, was not the best option. Additionally, guest passengers who know or should know that their driver is intoxicated are contributorily negligent, which bars their recovery from a third party involved in a collision caused in part by their host driver's intoxication.
Facts:
- On May 17, 1961, at approximately 12:45 A.M., Keith Samuel Jones was driving a Chevrolet eastbound at about seventy miles per hour with three guest passengers: Jerry Jones, Eula Mae Dellihoue, and Irene Crumb.
- Meredith S. Hailey was driving a 34,000-pound Halliburton truck westbound at about thirty-five miles per hour in his correct lane.
- The Jones vehicle was being driven erratically and crossed the center line into Hailey's westbound lane of traffic.
- Hailey saw the Jones vehicle approaching him in his lane from a distance of approximately 600 feet.
- To avoid what he perceived as an imminent head-on collision, Hailey turned his truck to the left, crossing the center line into the eastbound lane.
- Almost simultaneously, Keith Samuel Jones turned his car back to his right, returning to the proper eastbound lane.
- The vehicles collided head-on in the eastbound lane of traffic, and all four occupants of the Jones vehicle were killed.
- A post-mortem blood test revealed that Keith Samuel Jones had a blood alcohol content of 0.11%, which is sufficient to establish intoxication.
Procedural Posture:
- The surviving parents of the deceased driver and three guest passengers filed four separate suits against Meredith S. Hailey, Halliburton Company, and Continental Casualty Company in a Louisiana trial court.
- The cases were consolidated for trial.
- The trial court found both drivers, Keith Samuel Jones and Meredith S. Hailey, to be negligent.
- The trial court also found that the guest passengers were not contributorily negligent and awarded damages to their parents, while denying recovery to the parents of the driver, Jones.
- The defendants (Hailey et al.) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that Hailey was negligent and the guest passengers were not contributorily negligent.
- The defendants then applied for and were granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a driver who, when confronted with an oncoming vehicle in their lane, chooses to swerve into the opposing lane to avoid a collision, considered negligent if a collision nonetheless occurs when the other driver simultaneously returns to their proper lane?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamlin, Justice
No. A driver is not considered negligent under the sudden emergency doctrine when, faced with an imminent peril not of their own making, they make a reasonable, albeit ultimately incorrect, choice of action to avoid a collision. The court found that Hailey was confronted with a sudden emergency created solely by the negligence of Jones, who was driving intoxicated at a high speed on the wrong side of the road. Hailey's decision to swerve left was an error in judgment made in a split second under extreme duress. The law does not require unerring judgment in such circumstances but only a choice that a reasonably prudent person might make. Therefore, Hailey's action was not negligent. The court also held that the guest passengers were contributorily negligent because they voluntarily rode with a driver they knew or should have known was intoxicated, which bars their parents' recovery from the defendants.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the sudden emergency doctrine as a defense to negligence, shielding drivers from liability for errors in judgment made during a crisis they did not create. It establishes that a driver's actions should be judged based on the extreme circumstances of the moment, not on what hindsight reveals would have been the perfect course of action. The ruling also solidifies the objective 'should have known' standard for passenger contributory negligence regarding a driver's intoxication, making it a potent defense that can bar recovery even against a third party.
