Foster v. Strutz
Nature of the Case
Foster’s (P) foot was crushed between two vehicles. Foster sued the owner of the car Ankrum (D) and the vehicle operator Strutz (D1) for personal injuries. The trial court refused to give a sudden-emergency instruction. The jury attributed 55 percent of the fault to Ankrum and 45 percent to Strutz. Ankrum appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the sudden emergency instructions should have been given. Foster appealed.
Facts
Foster and a friend were passengers in a pickup driven by a third friend. They spotted a vehicle occupied by the defendants in parking lot. Foster’s car pulled into the parking lot as did a third vehicle containing several young men.
Foster was standing alongside the pickup when three to five young men from the third car approached Ankrum as he was sitting in the passenger seat of his car. They began yelling at Ankrum, striking him through the open window and attempting to pull him out of the car. Ankrum shielded Strutz, who was in the driver’s seat, by pulling her down into his lap.
Ankrum saw a fist come through the driver’s window and hit the gearshift, putting the car into reverse. Strutz, seated in the driver’s seat but lying across Ankrum’s lap, believed the car was in drive and stepped on the accelerator. Foster attempted to pull herself over the side and into the bed of the pickup but her foot was crushed between the rear bumper of Ankrum’s car and the side of the pickup.
Foster sued the defendants who in turn filed a third-party petition naming one of the assailants as a third-party defendant. The district court refused to give a sudden-emergency instruction. The court also refused to instruct the jury on comparative fault. The jury found the third-party defendant was not negligent and attributed fifty-five percent of the fault to Ankrum and forty-five percent to Strutz. The jury assessed damages in favor of Foster in the amount of $289,500.
Ankrum appealed, claiming the jury should have been instructed as to the sudden emergency doctrine and Foster’s comparative fault. The Court of Appeals overturned the ruling on the sudden emergency issue and Foster appealed.
Issue
- What is required in order to invoke the sudden emergency doctrine?
Holding and Rule of Law
- In order to invoke the sudden emergency doctrine there must be an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action.
A sudden emergency is a combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action or a sudden or unexpected occasion for action. A driver of a vehicle who is placed in a sudden emergency through no fault of her own is not chargeable with negligence if the driver exercises that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.
Sudden emergency has been variously defined as an unforeseen combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action; a perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; and a sudden or unexpected occasion for action, exigency, and pressing necessity. The defendants had ten to fifteen seconds to think and to act. This was sufficient time, under the circumstances, to assess the situation, make some judgment calls, and drive off without striking Foster.
Disposition
Decision of the court of appeals vacated and the trial court judgment affirmed.