Pennsylvania Courts have acknowledged the “sudden emergency doctrine” as a relevant defense in determining whether a driver was negligent in a car accident. See Lockhart v. List, 665 A.2d 1176 (Pa. 1995). The “sudden emergency doctrine” recognizes that a driver, who, although driving in a prudent manner, is confronted with a sudden or unexpected event which little or no time to comprehend a situation and act accordingly should not be subject to liability simply because another perhaps more prudent course was available; rather, under such circumstances, a person is only required to exhibit an honest exercise of judgment. Under Pennsylvania law, the “sudden emergency doctrine” presupposes the unexpected event to be some type of interjection of a moving object or instrumentality into the driver’s path. See Brown v. Schriver, 386 A.2d 45, 49 (Pa. Super. 1978); Elder v. Orluck, 483 A.2d 474 (Pa. Super. 1984) and Hanlon v. Sorenson, 433 A.2d 60 (Pa. Super. 1981).
Pennsylvania Courts have encountered many interesting situations which they have concluded that the “sudden emergency doctrine” may constituted a defense for a driver in a car accident, in which they would be otherwise considered negligent. Specifically, a dust cloud, a moving object in the road, a blockade in the road, swerving of another vehicle, blinding lights and a dense patch of fog may be considered as a “sudden emergency doctrine” under Pennsylvania caselaw. See Cunningham v. Byers, 732 A.2d 655, 658 (Pa. Super. 1999) and Unangst v. Whitehouse, 344 A.2d 695, 699 (Pa. Super. 1975).
Although this doctrine is rarely used by defendants in a car accident, it is an issue which should be addressed very early in a case by an attorney and/or an investigator. This can be easily addressed by carefully reviewing the statements of all parties and witnesses in the police report, inspecting the scene and interviewing witnesses.
