Opinion ID: 1185665
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Requested Sudden Emergency Instructions

Text: Appellants requested that the court give two instructions defining the duty of one in a sudden emergency. [33] The court refused to do so on the ground that the instructions were redundant and therefore improper, since the circumstances of the sudden emergency were covered in the instructions defining negligence generally. [34] Appellants do not believe the instructions redundant. They specifically argue that the instruction actually given does not specify that the jury was required to focus on Mrs. Ferrell's actions at or immediately before the time of the accident. Moreover they claim that the instruction fails to explain that an actor may not be excused by the emergency if it was caused by his own fault. All parties argue that the Alaska case on point is Meyst v. East Fifth Avenue Service, Inc., 401 P.2d 430, 432-433 (Alaska 1965). A defendant in that case requested an instruction similar to requested Instruction 2, supra. [35] This court held that the instruction given defining negligence was adequate in all respects. [36] Comparing Instruction 5 in this case [37] with Instruction 12 in Meyst, [38] it is readily apparent that the former is the more complete. If it was not error to give Instruction 12 in Meyst, Instruction 5 is certainly more than adequate. It is of no importance that Instruction 5 did not specify that the jury must focus on the time at or immediately before the accident. They were instructed to judge the conduct of the parties in the particular situation and circumstances involved, and to judge them by the standard of    a person of ordinary prudence    in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge   . The jury was also adequately instructed on the possible contributory negligence of Joan Ferrell. [39] There was no necessity to specifically instruct the jury that Mrs. Ferrell could not recover if she caused the emergency. We note that, while in this case as in Meyst, the court did not err by refusing to give the requested instructions, we cannot say that it would have erred by giving them.