Opinion ID: 1418440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: It was clear error to give an emergency instruction in a case in which defendant's car was on the wrong side of the road because of a claimed vehicle defect which caused it to go completely out of control.

Text: The trial court gave the following instruction: I instruct you that a person who is placed in a position of peril suddenly through no negligence of his own and compelled to act without an opportunity for reflection is not guilty of negligence if he makes such a choice as a reasonably prudent and careful person placed in such a position might make, even though he does not make the wisest choice.  (Emphasis added) In Frangos v. Edmunds, 179 Or. 577, at 607, 173 P.2d 596, at 609 (1946), this court stated the conditions under which an emergency instruction may properly be given, as follows:    When a driver finds himself confronted by an emergency constituting an imminent and impending danger and alternative means of escape from collision are presented so that it becomes a matter of judgment as to what course to follow, he will not be liable for a mistake in judgment if he acted with such care and prudence as a reasonable person would exercise in such an emergency. This is true even though the choice he makes is not such as a reasonable person with ample opportunity for deliberation would make. The rule is always subject to the limitation that a person cannot avail himself of the emergency doctrine if the emergency arose by reason of his own negligence. A review of our decisions will disclose that the emergency doctrine ordinarily applies only when the evidence discloses that alternative action is possible and that quick judgment is required [citing cases]. (Emphasis added) It is clear from defendant's testimony that he made no choice of a course of alternative action. He testified that:    the only thing I could do is I went to the right, hit the curb in the right-hand lane and went across the road in front of an oncoming car, which was the plaintiffs. All I could do was hold on and ride it out. There was no evidence that defendant had any alternative course of action. It follows that the emergency doctrine was not applicable under the facts of this case and that the trial court erred in giving that instruction. Defendant apparently recognizes that what the majority characterizes as a general exception was sufficient to raise an elementary question whether or not it was error to give an emergency instruction in a case in which a defendant had no alternative course of action. Defendant seemingly concedes that it would be error to give that instruction in such a case and contends only that there was testimony of an alternative course of action in that on cross-examination plaintiffs' attorney attempted to establish [defendant's] failure to steer or control his car in a direction other than in the path of the oncoming vehicle. (Tr 14) Upon examining the record, I am unable to find that defendant gave any testimony from which a jury could properly find that he had any alternative course of action. [7] Defendant also contends that the form of the instruction given related to `a person' and was applicable to both plaintiff driver and defendant. Plaintiff, however, objected to the instruction and, in the broad context of the testimony in this case, it is my opinion that the giving of that instruction made it clear to the jury that the instruction was intended to apply to defendant. The majority holds that the giving of that instruction was not error because plaintiffs' exception was general only and did not point out the defect of which plaintiffs now complain. No such contention was made by defendant. It may be proper to affirm a judgment after a trial in which an improper instruction was given to which no proper exception was taken, regardless of whether or not such a contention is made by the respondent. In my opinion, however, such a result is not proper in this case because the giving of the emergency instruction in this case was an error of law [so] apparent on the face of the record with the result that this court should take notice of it under the terms of Rule 6.18 of the Rules of Procedure of this court. We have said on a number of occasions in recent years that the emergency instruction is an instruction that is unnecessary to give and should be avoided. See Ballard v. Rickabaugh Orchards, Inc., 259 Or. 200, 207, 485 P.2d 1080, 1083 (1971). See also Jones v. Mitchell Bros., 266 Or. 513, 526-27, 511 P.2d 347, 514 P.2d 350 (1973); Rankin v. White, 258 Or. 252, 256, 482 P.2d 530 (1971); and Evans v. General Telephone, 257 Or. 460, 466-67, 479 P.2d 747 (1971). The vice of the emergency instruction is that it gives a party (whether plaintiff or defendant) a double shot on the issue of whether his conduct was such, considering all of the circumstances, as to satisfy his duty to exercise reasonable care. As we said in Evans v. General Telephone, supra (at 467, 479 P.2d at 751),    the usual instruction on negligence sufficiently covers what a reasonably prudent person would do under all circumstances, including those of sudden emergency. To the same effect, see Jones v. Mitchell Bros., supra, 266 Or. at 527, 511 P.2d 347. As yet, we have apparently not reversed a trial court for the giving of the emergency instructions in cases in which the facts were such as to present an alternative course of action. In my opinion, however, to affirm the giving of the emergency instruction in this case, in which defendant himself testified that he had no alternative course of action, is to make a mockery of our previous holdings to the effect that the giving of that instruction is improper in any case, as well as our previous holdings that an emergency instruction is improper unless the defendant has some alternative course of action  the well established rule since Frangos v. Edmunds, supra . In my view, we should either enforce the rules that we have stated or overrule those cases. For all of these reasons, I dissent. McALLISTER and HOWELL, JJ., join in this dissent.