Miller v. Eichhorn
426 N.W.2d 641 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, a trial court's refusal to issue a specific 'sudden emergency' jury instruction does not constitute reversible error if the general negligence instructions adequately require the jury to consider the reasonableness of a party's conduct under all circumstances, including the alleged emergency.
Facts:
- Connie M. Miller was driving her car on a day with freezing rain.
- Miller was aware that Harold Eichhorn's residence was ahead and that he might be backing out of his driveway.
- After rounding a curve approximately 300 feet from the driveway, Miller accelerated her vehicle.
- Harold Eichhorn backed his car from his driveway into the street, resulting in a collision with Miller's vehicle.
- Following the accident, Miller had no visible injuries, and her personal physician advised her to take aspirin.
- Prior to this accident, Miller had received chiropractic treatment for complaints similar to those she claimed resulted from the collision.
- In the years following the collision with Eichhorn, Miller was involved in a second car accident and also fell from a horse.
- One of Miller's own doctors testified that additional chiropractic treatments would have improved her condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Connie M. Miller and Keith Miller (Plaintiffs) sued Harold Eichhorn and Gloria Eichhorn (Defendants) in an Iowa trial court for personal injuries and loss of consortium.
- Following a trial, the jury found Connie Miller 15% at fault and Harold Eichhorn 85% at fault.
- The jury awarded Connie Miller $3,569.70 in damages but awarded nothing to Keith Miller for his loss of consortium claim.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the damages were inadequate and the jury instructions were erroneous, which the trial court denied.
- Plaintiffs (as Appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Iowa Court of Appeals, with the Eichhorns as Appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a comparative negligence case, does a trial court commit reversible error by refusing to give a specific 'sudden emergency' instruction when the general negligence instructions require the jury to consider the reasonableness of a party's conduct under all the circumstances, including the alleged emergency?
Opinions:
Majority - Sackett, Judge
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing to give the sudden emergency instruction. The court's general negligence instructions, which required the jury to evaluate the reasonableness of a party's conduct under all of the circumstances, were sufficient. The alleged emergency created by the defendant backing into the road is merely one of the circumstances for the jury to consider under the standard reasonable person test. The court reasoned that the sudden emergency doctrine is simply a reiteration of the reasonable person standard and that giving a separate instruction can be confusing, add nothing to the established law of negligence, and may give the improper impression that a driver is excused from the ordinary standard of care. The court also upheld the jury's damage award, noting the jury was entitled to weigh the credibility of medical testimony, especially given the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and subsequent accidents. Finally, the court affirmed that under the Iowa Comparative Fault Act, a plaintiff's 'unreasonable failure to ... mitigate damages' is correctly considered a type of 'fault' that can reduce their recovery.
Analysis:
This decision reflects a growing judicial skepticism toward the 'sudden emergency' doctrine, particularly within the framework of comparative negligence. The court signals that the doctrine is often redundant, as the concept of an emergency is already inherent in the 'reasonable person under the circumstances' analysis. By finding no reversible error in the absence of the instruction, the case encourages trial courts to simplify jury instructions and avoid giving undue emphasis to one party's theory. This approach streamlines the jury's task by focusing it on the core question of reasonableness rather than on a separate, and potentially confusing, legal doctrine.
Unlock the full brief for Miller v. Eichhorn