Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority, 77 N.Y.2d 322 (1991)
The emergency doctrine applies when a party is faced with a sudden and unexpected occurrence not of their own making, and the reasonableness of their actions in response is a question for the jury.
Summary
Plaintiff, a bus passenger, sustained injuries when the bus made an abrupt stop to avoid a collision with a car that turned in front of it. The defendant requested a jury instruction on the emergency doctrine, which the trial court denied, citing the driver’s familiarity with the intersection. The Appellate Division reversed, ordering a new trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the emergency doctrine instruction should have been given because a reasonable view of the evidence suggested the driver was confronted with a sudden and unexpected occurrence, and it was for the jury to determine the reasonableness of the driver’s response.
Facts
Plaintiff was a passenger on a bus owned by the defendant and driven by the defendant’s employee. The plaintiff testified that he was thrown across the aisle and injured when the bus stopped abruptly. The bus driver stated that he was leaving a designated bus stop when a car suddenly turned right in front of the bus from the left lane. The driver applied the brakes immediately to avoid a collision but was unable to avoid the sudden stop.
Procedural History
The jury found the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the emergency doctrine. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, vacated the judgment, and ordered a new trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the emergency doctrine, given the bus driver’s testimony about the sudden appearance of a car turning in front of the bus.
Holding
Yes, because a reasonable view of the evidence supported that the bus driver was faced with a sudden and unexpected occurrence not of his own making, making the reasonableness of his conduct a question for the jury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that the emergency doctrine instruction should have been given. The court relied on the principle that “[w]here some reasonable view of the evidence establishes that an actor was confronted by a sudden and unforeseen occurrence not of the actor’s own making, then the reasonableness of the conduct in the face of the emergency is for the jury.” The court found that the bus driver’s testimony suggested that the car suddenly and unexpectedly cut in front of the bus. The court reasoned that the driver’s general awareness that cars often make right turns in front of buses did not preclude the jury from deciding that the driver did not anticipate being suddenly cut off by this particular car. As the court stated, “That a driver was aware that cars often made right turns in front of buses would not preclude a jury from deciding that, as to the events in issue in this case, the driver did not anticipate being suddenly cut off by this particular car.” Because the emergency doctrine instruction was erroneously refused, a new trial was warranted.