Myhaver v. Knutson
942 P.2d 445 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'sudden emergency' jury instruction is disfavored and should only be given in the rare case where the emergency is not a routine event of the accident but arises from events the driver could not be expected to anticipate. While not abolished, giving the instruction is discretionary, and it is rarely, if ever, an error for a trial court to refuse to give it.
Facts:
- Theresa Magnusson drove out of a shopping center driveway and entered 43rd Avenue.
- Magnusson proceeded to drive south while in the northbound lane of traffic.
- Elmo Knutson, who was driving north in the northbound lane, saw Magnusson's car heading directly toward him.
- To avoid a head-on collision, Knutson accelerated and swerved his vehicle to the left, crossing the double yellow line.
- After crossing into the southbound lanes, Knutson's vehicle collided with a pickup truck driven by Bruce Myhaver.
- Myhaver sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Bruce Myhaver sued Elmo Knutson and Theresa Magnusson in an Arizona trial court for damages resulting from the collision.
- Magnusson settled with the Myhavers prior to trial and was named a non-party at fault.
- Before trial, the Myhavers filed a motion for partial summary judgment to preclude the use of the sudden emergency instruction, which the trial court denied.
- At trial, the judge gave the jury a sudden emergency instruction.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Knutson, finding him not liable.
- The Myhavers, as appellants, appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing the instruction was given in error; Knutson was the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Myhavers sought review from the Arizona Supreme Court.
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 'sudden emergency' jury instruction appropriate in a negligence case, or should it be abandoned as confusing and inconsistent with comparative negligence principles?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Justice
Yes, a 'sudden emergency' jury instruction may be appropriate in rare cases. The doctrine is not a separate rule but merely an application of the general standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, where the emergency is one of the circumstances to be considered. The court reasoned that while the instruction is often confusing, singles out one aspect of the case, and is subsumed within general negligence principles, it should not be completely forbidden. Instead, its use should be discouraged and confined to cases involving a true, unanticipated emergency, not routine traffic events like a child darting into the street. The court endorsed a framework considering if: 1) there was no antecedent negligence by the actor, 2) the emergency was sudden and unexpected, and 3) the reaction was spontaneous. In this case, a car driving the wrong way down the road was a true emergency Knutson could not anticipate, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction.
Concurring - Zlaket, Chief Justice
No, the sudden emergency instruction should be eliminated altogether as it is unwise, unnecessary, and has an enormous potential for harm. The concurrence argues that the instruction overemphasizes one of many elements in a standard negligence analysis and that the majority's attempt to narrow its use is unhelpful and will only lead to more debate. Standard negligence instructions, supplemented by counsel's argument, are sufficient to convey the relevant legal principles. However, because the instruction had not been previously disapproved in Arizona and its use was harmless on these specific facts, the author concurs in the result affirming the trial court's judgment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the use of the sudden emergency instruction in Arizona, moving it from a standard defense instruction to one that is highly disfavored. While not abolishing the doctrine, the court's strong cautionary language signals to trial judges that the instruction should only be given in exceptional circumstances. The ruling shifts the focus from a special 'emergency' standard to the general 'reasonable person' standard, treating the emergency as just one of many circumstances for the jury to consider. This aligns Arizona with a modern trend of simplifying jury instructions and makes it more difficult for defendants in negligence cases to rely on a claim of panic to excuse their conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Myhaver v. Knutson