How the “Emergency Doctrine” Could Affect Your NYC Car Accident Claim
By their very nature, car accidents are sudden events that usually occur without warning. One moment you are driving your car down the street normally; the next moment you may be trapped in your now-wrecked vehicle with serious, life-threatening injuries.
When a car accident in New York City is the result of negligence, the victims may be entitled to file a personal injury lawsuit if they sustained a “serious injury” that exceeds the state’s no-fault insurance threshold. But even when it is clear that a driver caused an accident, they may still escape civil liability if they can prove the crash was the result of a “sudden emergency.”
An Affirmative Defense to Personal Injury Lawsuits
The emergency doctrine, also known as the sudden emergency doctrine, is what is known as an affirmative defense to a personal injury claim. Basically, when confronted with allegations that their actions caused a car accident, a defendant can argue that they were faced with an emergency situation that prevented them from avoiding a crash. To support such a defense, the defendant must prove the following conditions existed at the time of the accident:
- There was a sudden and unexpected circumstance (i.e., an emergency) that left the defendant with little time to think or react to the situation;
- The defendant did not cause the emergency; and
- The defendant’s actions were reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency.
A recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, helps illustrate how courts look at these conditions in a real-world context. The case before the Second Department, Annarumma v. Tola, involved a multi-car accident that occurred on Staten Island. The plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at a stop sign. A second vehicle rear-ended the plaintiff’s car. A third vehicle then either struck the second vehicle, pushing it a second time into the plaintiff’s car, or directly struck the plaintiff’s car.
The plaintiff subsequently sued the other two drivers. The driver of the third car moved to dismiss the case at summary judgment, arguing they could not be found liable under the emergency doctrine. Essentially, the third driver argued they could not avoid the collision, which was the direct result of the initial collision between the plaintiff and the second driver.
While the Supreme Court granted the third driver’s motion for summary judgment, the Second Department reversed. It held the third driver failed to provide a “nonnegligent explanation” for their collision with the plaintiff. Indeed, there was evidence suggesting the third driver had been speeding on what was an icy road just before the three-car collision. As such, the Second Department said the plaintiff was entitled to proceed with his lawsuit against both drivers.
Contact a New York City Car Accident Lawyer
Determining who is legally responsible for a car accident can get quite complicated when more than two vehicles are involved. These are precisely the sorts of cases where victims can benefit from the services of a qualified New York City car accident lawyer. Contact the Law Offices of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, PLLC, at 212-227-2780 to schedule a consultation. We serve clients throughout New York City and Long Island and surrounding communities.
Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10163040887238204743