Court Opinion

ID: 9566314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:36:41.752651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:44.358629
License: Public Domain

Carley, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion in Division 2 (a) that the trial court did not err in charging on sudden emergency, I must respectfully dissent.
In quoting from Ray v. Anderson, 189 Ga. App. 80, 82 (374 SE2d 819) (1988), the majority correctly points out that the existence vel non of a sudden emergency is a jury question “except in plain and indisputable cases.” (Majority opinion, p. 374.) I respectfully submit that this is a plain and indisputable case, and that a sudden emergency as contemplated by the law of this State simply did not exist.
“The doctrine of emergency refers to those acts which occur immediately following the apprehension of the danger or crisis and before there is time for careful consideration or reflection. [Cit.] This requires that the person confronted by the emergency have the opportunity to exercise one of several reasonable alternative courses of action. In the absence of such factors, there can be no conduct to which to apply the standard and the doctrine is inapplicable.” [Cit.] Barlow v. Veber, 169 Ga. App. 65, 66 (1) (311 SE2d 501) (1983). In this case, no emergency arose until the action of the defendant in taking the “chance” by “easing out” into the intersection. Until Mrs. Heydrick took that “chance” there was no peril with which she was immediately faced and to avoid which she had to take one of several alternative courses of action. In fact, Mrs. Heydrick’s own attorney asked the following question during the cross-examination of the police officer: “Mrs. Franklin is coming south. Mrs. Heydrick has got somebody behind her, she’s got the truck to her right, she can’t see to the right, so there is nothing safe for her to do, right?” (Emphasis supplied.) To this question the police officer replied in the affirmative. There being no alternatives, there was “no conduct to which to apply the standard and the doctrine is inapplicable.” Barlow v. Veber, supra. Accordingly it is my opinion that the trial court erred in charging on sudden emergency and, in view of the evidentiary posture of this case, I do not believe that the error was harmless. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray joins in this dissent.
*377Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, Cubbedge Snow III, R. Chris Irwin & Associates, David L. Whitman, for appellees.