Bjorndal v. Weitman
Nature of the Case
Bjorndal (P) appealed a jury verdict in Weitman’s (D) favor arguing that the evidence did not establish an emergency that would support giving the emergency instruction.
Facts
Bjorndal was driving and looking for her father whose car had broken down along the highway. Weitman had been following her for approximately 20 minutes. She then spotted her father ahead on the right side of the road.
Weitman saw Bjorndal’s father waving his hands and gesturing and assumed there was some sort of emergency situation ahead. Weitman began to look around and failed to notice Bjorndal’s rapid deceleration. Weitman applied his brakes and decided to steer to his left to pass Bjorndal on the left.
Weitman testified that he did not see Bjorndal’s left turn signal until after the van started to move to the left and at that point he was unable to avoid colliding with the van. Bjorndal brought suit seeking damages for personal injuries and medical expenses arising out of the collision. The case was tried to a jury. The trial court gave the emergency instruction: People who are suddenly placed in a position of peril through no negligence of their own, and who are compelled to act without opportunity for reflection, are not negligent if they make a choice as a reasonably careful person placed in such a position might make, even though they do not make the wisest choice. Bjorndal excepted to that instruction.
Weitman got the verdict. Bjorndal appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in giving the emergency instruction. The appellate court affirmed and Bjorndal appealed, contending that the emergency instruction does not merely reiterate the negligence instruction; it incorrectly suggests that, in an emergency, some standard of conduct lower than the usual standard of reasonable care applies. Weitman in turn argues that, in a sudden emergency, which the jury could have found existed here, the instruction properly reminds the jury that determining whether a person acted reasonably includes consideration of all the circumstances in which the person was required to act, including those that may have constituted the emergency.
Issue
- Is the issue of an emergency instruction to the jury appropriate in ordinary vehicle negligence cases?
Holding and Rule of Law
- No. An emergency instruction, as used in ordinary vehicle negligence cases, is an inaccurate and confusing supplement to the instructions on the law of negligence and should not be given.
The emergency instruction originated as a means to allow the jury to avoid the harsh result of finding that a defendant was negligent per se for violating a statute or ordinance or that a plaintiff was contributorily negligent and therefore barred from recovering damages against a negligent defendant. In recent decades, courts in some states have abolished the emergency instruction because the tort doctrines that it was intended to ameliorate have themselves been changed.
The emergency instruction is erroneous because it introduces into the liability determination additional concepts that are not part of the ordinary negligence standard — whether the person had a choice, whether the person made a choice that a reasonable person might make, and whether the person made the wisest choice. The emergency instruction, at least as used in vehicle accident cases, misstates the law of negligence by introducing an inquiry respecting whether a person has made the wisest choice, rather than focusing on whether the person used reasonable care, given all the circumstances.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.