Court Opinion

ID: 9746668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:32:35.655384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:15.688474
License: Public Domain

O’KICKI, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with the majority Opinion in this case. However, I do not feel the sudden emergency doctrine should be limited, in automobile cases, to whether the object suddenly moves in front of the motorist. The better view was stated in Carpenter v. Penn Central Transportation Company, 269 Pa.Super. 9, 409 A.2d 37 (1979).
“The purpose of the sudden emergency doctrine is to relive a victim from the sometimes stringent reasonable man standard when he is confronted with an occurrence that permits no opportunity to apprehend the situation and act accordingly. The doctrine is applied most often in automobile cases in which a driver is confronted with an occurrence requiring some form of immediate, evasive *535action.” 269 Pa.Super. at 17, 409 A.2d at 40. (Citations omitted), (emphasis added).