Lifson v. Klink, 9 N.Y.3d 456 (2007)
The emergency doctrine does not apply when the alleged emergency situation (e.g., sun glare) was a foreseeable circumstance given the conditions and surroundings.
Summary
Irene Lifson was struck and killed by a car driven by Derek Klink. Klink claimed he was temporarily blinded by sun glare while making a left turn. The trial court instructed the jury on the emergency doctrine, and the jury found Klink not negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the emergency doctrine was improperly applied because the sun glare was a foreseeable condition, given the time of day and Klink’s direction of travel. The court emphasized that the emergency doctrine is reserved for sudden and unexpected circumstances, not those that are reasonably anticipated.
Facts
Klink, driving northbound on Harrison Place, attempted a left turn onto Harrison Street, a one-way street. Klink testified his view was partially obstructed, and he inched forward to see traffic. He noticed pedestrians to his left, looked, and proceeded to turn. Mid-turn, he was allegedly blinded by sun glare. He looked down, then up, seeing Lifson just before impact. Lifson was wearing a red coat. The accident occurred around 4:05 p.m. on a sunny day. Lifson was crossing Harrison Street where the MONY Towers’ exit lines up with the entrance to the garage, despite the absence of a marked crosswalk at that location.
Procedural History
Lifson’s estate sued Klink and the City of Syracuse. At trial, the court instructed the jury on the emergency doctrine. The jury found the City and Lifson negligent, apportioning fault at 15% and 85%, respectively, and found Klink not negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order regarding Klink, reinstated the complaint against him, and remitted the case for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the emergency doctrine based on Klink’s claim that he was blinded by sun glare.
Holding
Yes, because the sun glare, under the circumstances, was not a sudden and unexpected occurrence that would warrant the application of the emergency doctrine.
Court’s Reasoning
The emergency doctrine applies when an actor faces a sudden and unexpected circumstance leaving little time for thought, provided the actor did not create the emergency. The court distinguished this case from situations involving truly unexpected emergencies. The court reasoned that Klink was familiar with the area, was turning west at a time of day when the sun was setting, and that it is common knowledge that the sun can interfere with vision under such conditions. Therefore, the sun glare was not a “sudden and unexpected circumstance.” The court cited Caristo v. Sanzone, where icy conditions were not considered a sudden emergency because the driver was aware of deteriorating weather for hours. The court contrasted this with Ferrer v. Harris, where a child darting into the street was considered a qualifying emergency. The Court stated, “While Klink did not drive this particular route often, he was familiar with the general area since he worked in the MONY Towers. Klink was about to turn to the west at a time of day that the sun would be setting. It is well known, and therefore cannot be considered a sudden and unexpected circumstance, that the sun can interfere with one’s vision as it nears the horizon at sunset, particularly when one is heading west.” Because the improper charge affected the outcome, it was not harmless error. The court emphasized that the jury instruction on the emergency doctrine created an extremely favorable standard for Klink to be judged by.