Opinion ID: 738753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instructions on Last Clear Chance and Sudden Emergency

Text: 18 Plaintiffs argue that the district court should have instructed the jury regarding the doctrines of last clear chance and sudden emergency. The instructions of the judge were correct because the doctrines of last clear chance and sudden emergency no longer exist as separate common law doctrines in Tennessee. Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587, 592 (1994). These doctrines have been incorporated into the current law of comparative negligence. Id. The circumstances formerly considered under the doctrines are to be considered by the jury as part of their assessment of fault between the parties. Id. 19 The district court correctly charged the jury to consider the circumstances formerly considered under the doctrines of last clear chance and sudden emergency as part of their assessment of the relative negligence of the parties. The judge charged the jury to consider the circumstances formerly considered under the last clear chance doctrine by charging them to consider the extent to which a party failed to reasonably utilize an existing opportunity to avoid injury. (Jury Instructions at TR 644). The judge also charged the jury to consider the circumstances formerly considered under the sudden emergency doctrine by charging them to consider the existence of a sudden emergency requiring a hasty decision. Id. 20