Court Opinion

ID: 9772219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:10:42.430444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:42.688309
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I concur. Today, the court corrects an obvious misstatement of the law which has crept into a few Arkansas cases where AMI 614, our “sudden emergency” instruction, has been in issue. The recurring error is obvious and required this court’s attention and correction. AMI Civil 3d, 614 provides as follows: 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. (Emphasis added.) As can be readily discerned from AMI 614’s language, the sudden emergency doctrine has no application and may not be asserted if the emergency arises wholly or partially from the negligence of the one who seeks to invoke the doctrine. See Smith v. Stevens, 313 Ark. 534, 855 S.W.2d 323 (1993); Williams v. Carr, 263 Ark. 326, 565 S.W.2d 400 (1978); Johnson v. Nelson, 242 Ark. 10, 411 S.W.2d 661 (1967); Hooten v. DeJarnett, 237 Ark. 792, 376 S.W.2d 272 (1964). See also J. D. Lee and Barry A. Lindahl, 1 Mod Tort Law § 3.37 (rev. ed. 1993); W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 33, at 196-197 (5th ed. 1984); Henry Woods, Comparative Fault § 4:8 (2nd ed. 1987 and Supp. 1993). Contrary to AMI 614’s clear language, several cases have surfaced that have stated the law differently. For example, in our most recent case of Diemer v. Dischler, 313 Ark. 154, 852 S.W.2d 793 (1993), this court, citing Scoggins v. Southern Farmers’ Assn., 304 Ark. 426, 803 S.W.2d 515 (1991), and Ashmore v. Ford, 267 Ark. App. 854, 591 S.W.2d 666 (Ark. App. 1979), said the following: AMI 614 requires the sudden emergency not be caused by the negligence of the party requesting the instruction. We have held in this regard that where the evidence of some negligence on the part of the requesting party is “very strong,’’ that party is not entitled to the instruction. (Emphasis added.) Diemer at 159. In applying the foregoing misstatement of the law in AMI 614, the Diemer court held that, under the facts existent there, the trial court could readily have found that the evidence was sufficiently strong that Diemer was speeding and helped create the emergency, thus, the trial court correctly refused to give AMI 614. Of course, the corollary rule would have been, if the evidence had been slight on the part of the party seeking to invoke AMI 614, he or she would have been entitled to have it read to the jury. Such a result is a misapplication of the sudden emergency doctrine. This court’s prior misapplication or misinterpretation of this doctrine is obviously not uncommon. In their treatise, Professors Prosser and Keeton state as follows: Despite the basic logic and simplicity of the sudden emergency doctrine, it is all too frequently misapplied on the facts or misstated in jury instructions. As'a result, the model jury instructions in at least Illinois, Florida, Kansas and Missouri recommend that no such instruction be given, and Mississippi abolished the doctrine altogether in 1980. W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 33, at 197 (5th ed. 1984). ludge Henry Woods, in his edition and update, points to other states adhering to the comparative negligence concept that have since abolished the sudden emergency doctrine. See Eslinger v. Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc., 195 Mont. 292, 636 P.2d 254 (1981); Knapp v. Standford, 392 So. 196 (Miss. 1980); cited as Contra Young v. Clark, 814 P.2d 364 (Colo. 1991); Keller v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 360 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 1984). See also Miller v. Eichhorn, 426 N.W.2d 641, 644 (Iowa App. 1988) and Bellas v. Dressier Industries, Inc., 564 So.2d 1305 n. 4 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1990), cert, denied at 569 So.2d 988 (these two cases express doubt regarding the sudden emergency doctrine after their respective state’s adoption of comparative fault). Other more recent cases in sister jurisdictions have joined the trend either to restrict the use of the sudden emergency instruction in negligence cases or to abolish it altogether. DiCenzo v. Izawa, 723 P.2d 171 (Hawaii 1986) (inasmuch as the risk of prejudicial error in instructing the jury on the [sudden emergency] doctrine exceeds by far the possibility of error in not doing so, [the court] thinks the wiser course of action would be to withhold sudden emergency instructions); Bass v. Williams, 839 S.W.2d 559 (Ky. App. 1992) (with the adoption of comparative negligence, it is error to instruct the jury on a sudden emergency theory); Cowell v. Thompson, 713 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. App. 1986) (emergency instructions are no longer permitted under MAI); Simonson v. White, 713 P.2d 983 (Mont. 1986) (the use of the sudden emergency instruction in automobile cases is hereafter banned); McClymont v. Morgan, 238 Neb. 390, 470 N.W.2d 768 (1991) (the giving of an independent sudden emergency is not warranted in a negligence action). See also 10 ALR 5th 680, Modern Status of Sudden Emergency Doctrine. In reviewing those cases from jurisdictions that have adopted comparative fault, the appellate courts have generally stated that the problem in giving the sudden emergency instruction is that it singles out one aspect of the general standard of care and may give the doctrine of sudden emergency undue emphasis and may unduly emphasize one party’s argument regarding a certain part of the standard of care. The Hawaii Supreme Court worded it another way, saying, “It would be foolhardy to jeopardize the outcome of trial by giving a [sudden emergency] instruction adding little to the basic jury charge that must be given in any negligence action.” DiCenzo v. Izawa, 723 P.2d at 173. The utility of the sudden emergency doctrine seems of lit-tie value to me in light of our state’s adherence to the comparative fault doctrine view. In my view, where a sudden emergency occurs, that is only a circumstance for the jury to consider when determining whether a person was exercising ordinary care under the circumstances. An emergency instruction adds nothing to the established law applicable in any negligence case and serves only to leave an impression in the minds of jurors that a driver is somehow excused from the ordinary standard of care because an emergency existed. The emergency instruction does little more than confuse attorneys and courts when weighing its application, and understandably so when they are about to agree upon giving the comparative fault instruction. If this has been confusing to the bench and bar (and the cases and treatises reflect it has been), surely we cannot expect any better from a jury which must be confounded by such choices. I certainly agree with the court’s decision to clarify our law that AMI 614 should never hereafter be applicable in situations where there is any evidence of negligence on the part of the party seeking to invoke it. Preferably, I think the court should abolish the use of the sudden emergency doctrine since its use is unnecessary, considering Arkansas’s comparative fault instruction, and serves mainly to confound those who must apply it.