Posas v. Horton
228 P.3d 457 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sudden-emergency jury instruction is only appropriate when an actor is confronted by a sudden and unforeseeable change in conditions through no negligence of their own. A driver whose own negligence, such as following too closely, contributes to creating the perilous situation is not entitled to this instruction.
Facts:
- Emilia Posas was driving her car in stop-and-go traffic on a clear day.
- Nicole Horton was driving immediately behind Posas's vehicle.
- A woman pushing a stroller began to jaywalk in the middle of the street directly in front of Posas's car.
- Posas stopped suddenly to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
- Horton was traveling 10 to 15 miles per hour and was three to four feet behind Posas's vehicle.
- Horton did not see the pedestrian and her car struck the rear of Posas's car.
- Horton later testified, "yeah, obviously, I was following too close, I rear-ended her . . . you know, I made a mistake."
Procedural Posture:
- Emilia Posas filed a personal injury lawsuit against Nicole Horton in the district court (trial court).
- During the trial, the court gave the jury a sudden-emergency instruction over Posas's objection.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Horton, finding her not liable for the accident.
- Posas filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- Posas (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that the jury instruction was given in error.
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 trial court commit a reversible error by giving a sudden-emergency jury instruction in a rear-end collision case where the defendant driver's own negligence contributed to creating the hazardous situation?
Opinions:
Majority - Douglas, L.
Yes. Giving a sudden-emergency jury instruction is a prejudicial error when the party requesting the instruction contributed to the emergency through their own negligence. The sudden-emergency doctrine requires that the person be placed in a position of peril through no fault of their own and that the peril be an extraordinary, unforeseeable event, not a routine traffic hazard like a car stopping suddenly. Here, Horton admitted to following too closely, an act of negligence that created her inability to stop safely. Furthermore, the actual emergency—the jaywalking pedestrian—confronted Posas, not Horton. Horton was confronted with an ordinary traffic event that she should have been prepared to handle by exercising reasonable care, which includes maintaining a safe following distance.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the applicability of the sudden-emergency doctrine in Nevada negligence law, particularly in automobile accident cases. It establishes that the doctrine cannot be used as a defense by a party whose own prior negligence was a substantial factor in creating the emergency. By aligning with precedent from other jurisdictions, the court reinforces the principle that common traffic occurrences, like sudden stops, are foreseeable events that drivers have a duty to anticipate. This ruling strengthens the legal expectation for drivers to maintain a safe following distance and will make it more difficult for defendants in rear-end collision cases to shift blame by claiming a sudden emergency.
Unlock the full brief for Posas v. Horton