People v. Traughber
439 N.W.2d 231, 432 Mich. 208 (1989)
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 guilty of negligence for failing to make the best possible choice, as their actions are not to be judged with hindsight but by the standard of a reasonably prudent person under similar emergency circumstances.
Facts:
- David Traughber was driving south at approximately 35 mph on Denton Road, a dark, unlighted two-lane road.
- Linus Parr was driving north in the opposite lane, approaching Traughber's vehicle from about three-quarters of a mile away.
- Traughber suddenly encountered a large metal real estate sign lying flat in his lane of travel.
- When he was approximately thirty feet from Parr's oncoming car, Traughber made a split-second decision to swerve left into the northbound lane to avoid the sign, believing there was a ditch to his right.
- Upon seeing Traughber's car enter his lane, Parr swerved his car right into the southbound lane.
- Traughber, having maneuvered around the sign, was simultaneously attempting to return to his own southbound lane.
- The two vehicles collided head-on just inside the southbound lane, resulting in the death of Parr's passenger, Rochelle Richmond.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecutor charged David Traughber in Wayne County with negligent homicide and operating a motor vehicle without a valid license.
- A preliminary examination was conducted.
- Traughber waived his right to a jury trial and underwent a bench trial in the Wayne Circuit Court, the court of first instance.
- The trial judge acquitted Traughber of driving without a license but convicted him of negligent homicide.
- Traughber, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conviction.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted Traughber's application for leave to appeal.
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 driver's split-second decision to swerve into an oncoming lane to avoid a sudden, unexpected road obstruction constitute criminal negligence when that action results in a fatal collision?
Opinions:
Majority - Riley, C.J.
No. A driver's conduct in a sudden emergency not of their own making should not be judged with hindsight, and therefore, such a reaction does not constitute criminal negligence. The court reasoned that Traughber was confronted with, not the creator of, the emergency. The unexpected sign on the road prompted an instinctive reaction, not a calculated decision. The law makes allowances for a lack of calm judgment in such situations and does not hold a person responsible for an error in judgment if a reasonably prudent person might have acted similarly under the same exigent circumstances. Although the trial court correctly identified the 'reasonable person' standard, it erred by failing to apply that standard within the context of the emergency, instead incorrectly concluding that Traughber 'created' the emergency by his choice to swerve left.
Dissenting - Boyle, J.
Yes. A rational fact-finder could conclude the driver's conduct was unreasonable under all circumstances and therefore constituted criminal negligence. The dissent argued that the majority improperly substituted its own factual findings for those of the trial judge, who was in the best position to weigh the evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational judge could have found that Traughber was inattentive prior to seeing the sign and that his decision to swerve into the path of an oncoming car only thirty feet away was not the act of a reasonable person. The trial court correctly considered the entire situation, including the sign, and reasonably concluded that the defendant's 'thoughtlessness, heedlessness, and inattention' led him to create the ultimate emergency, thus satisfying the elements of negligent homicide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'sudden emergency' doctrine as a critical component of negligence analysis in criminal cases. It clarifies that the doctrine is not merely an affirmative defense but shapes the standard of care itself, preventing the application of hindsight to evaluate split-second decisions made under duress. The ruling instructs trial courts to carefully distinguish between defendants who are confronted by an emergency and those who create one through their own prior negligence. This limits criminal liability for mere errors of judgment in true emergency situations, thereby protecting drivers from being convicted based on what might, in calm reflection, appear to have been a better course of action.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Traughber