Court Opinion

ID: 9705894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:25:33.211847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:15.189201
License: Public Domain

D. R. Freeman, J.
(concurring). It is necessary that a defendant raising a sudden emergency doctrine meet the burden of presenting evidence. Although the trial court’s instruction on a preponderance of the evidence burden was improper, this Court’s holdings should not be read to indicate that no proofs are necessary. Placing the burden of producing evidence on the defendant certainly does not detract from the efficacy of the doctrine. Of course, the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence does not shift from the plaintiff.
The third conclusion reached by the majority finds the test to apply is a reasonable, prudent *236person test under "all the circumstances of the accident”. The circumstances to be considered should not be restricted solely to the events of the accident. For example, evidence of prior difficulties with brakes (as was adduced in the instant case) may be significant.