Opinion ID: 2408514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sudden Emergency Instruction

Text: For its next argument on appeal, the railroad asserts that the trial court erred when it gave the Sudden Emergency instruction which states: A person who is suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with danger to himself or others not caused by his own negligence is not required to use the same judgment that is required of him in calmer and more deliberate moments. He is required to use only the care that a reasonably careful person would use in the same situation. AMI Civ. 3rd 614. In Wiles v. Webb, 329 Ark. 108, 946 S.W.2d 685 (1997), we recently abolished the use of the Sudden Emergency instruction in all future cases because we found that the instruction was inherently confusing. The Wiles holding applies prospectively only, and thus is inapplicable to cases, such as this one, that were tried before the Wiles decision was handed down on June 16, 1997. In these pre- Wiles  cases, we will apply the old rule that the Sudden Emergency instruction may not be given where there is any evidence that the party requesting the instruction was negligent in creating the emergency situation. Thomson v. Littlefield, 319 Ark. 648, 893 S.W.2d 788 (1995); Druckenmiller v. Cluff, 316 Ark. 517, 873 S.W.2d 526 (1994). Sharp claims that this issue is not preserved for appeal because the railroad failed to make a proper objection to the instruction. It is well settled that no party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before or at the time the instruction is given, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Bridges v. State, 327 Ark. 392, 938 S.W.2d 561 (1997); Clowney v. Gill, 326 Ark. 253, 929 S.W.2d 720 (1996). We find that the railroad complied with these requirements when it objected as follows: SHARP: I have a 614 instruction on sudden emergency. It does appear that that was what occurred out there. RAILROAD: Judge, the notes on 614 say one has to be free from negligence to be entitled to this instruction. COURT: Just thinking on thisI don't know how the Judge can be put in the position of making that decision because that is a question of fact for the jury. RAILROAD: Well the law as we will get to, and I think its 1804 is: A railroad grade crossing is a place of danger. And the witness himself testified that he knew there was a railroad crossing ahead, and he saw it when he turned the corner and also he had been across it four of five times that same day. He wasn't suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with the danger of a railroad crossing. The railroad's initial objection was a verbatim recitation of the notes commenting on AMI 614. See Williams v. Carr, 263 Ark. 326, 565 S.W.2d 400 (1978). After the trial court expressed its understanding that only the jury can decide whether Sharp was free from negligence, the railroad enumerated evidence of Sharp's negligence, thereby apprising the trial court that the instruction should not be given because there was evidence that Sharp was negligent in creating the emergency situation. Only after considering the railroad's references to evidence of Sharp's negligence did the trial court overrule the objection. Hence, we find that the issue is properly preserved for appeal. As to the merits, we agree with the railroad that the instruction should not have been given under the pre- Wiles  rule because there was some evidence from which a jury could have concluded that Sharp was negligent in creating the emergency situation. For example, Sharp testified that he was aware of the crossing because he had passed over it several times that day. Additionally, Sharp admitted that he saw the train as it turned the corner to the intersection. Sharp also did not have a valid driver's license at the time of the accident. Finally, there was some evidence that Sharp may have been driving too fast for the wet road conditions. Because there was some evidence that Sharp was negligent in causing the impending collision, we conclude that the trial court erred when it gave the Sudden Emergency instruction. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's ruling on this issue.