Opinion ID: 2276108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Sudden Emergency Doctrine Subsumed by Comparative Negligence?

Text: The sudden emergency qualification was not subsumed by the comparative negligence doctrine. [20] In comparative negligence, the plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to his or her fault. [21] A party's fault is determined by evaluating his or her conduct in consideration of the duties he or she is bound to observe. [22] [T]he sudden emergency doctrine is merely an expression of the reasonably prudent person standard of care. It expresses the notion that the law requires no more from an actor than is reasonable to expect in the event of an emergency. [23] In other words, in the comparative negligence case, [t]he sudden emergency instruction informs the jury ... how it is to allocate fault and apportion damages when the conduct of the person in question is that of an `ordinarily prudent person' when faced with an emergency situation. [24] Significantly, the doctrine explains to the jury the standard of conduct expected of defendants and plaintiffs who act under the stress of an emergency situation. [25] With the adoption of comparative negligence, the sudden emergency doctrine is now only a factor in the total fault analysis. [26] In cases like this one, where the defendant encountered a patch of ice, the defendant's failure to adhere to the duties enumerated by statute (e.g., to keep her automobile on the right hand side of the road), without a sudden emergency qualification, will result in liability even if the defendant was not at fault. The core principle of comparative negligence is that [o]ne is liable for an amount equal to his degree of fault, no more and no less. [27] The sudden emergency doctrine necessarily complements this principle in those particular cases where additional circumstances alter the way in which one's degree of fault should be determined. We find no friction between comparative negligence and the sudden emergency doctrine, and therefore, we conclude that the Bass Court erred in abolishing the doctrine on this ground.