Posas v. Horton
228 P.3d 457 · Nevada Supreme Court · 2010
Facts
Emilia Posas was driving when a woman pushing a stroller began to cross the street directly in front of her car. Posas stopped suddenly to avoid hitting the jaywalking pedestrian. Nicole Horton, driving immediately behind Posas, then hit the rear of Posas's car. Horton testified that traffic was stop-and-go, she was moving 10-15 mph, and was three to four feet behind Posas's vehicle. Horton did not see the pedestrian and admitted, "I was following too close, I rearended her . . . I made a mistake." As a result, Posas filed a personal injury action against Horton.
Procedural history
Posas filed a personal injury action against Horton. The jury was given a sudden-emergency instruction despite Posas's objection and returned a verdict for Horton. Posas moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. This appeal followed.
Issue
Did the district court err in giving a sudden-emergency jury instruction in this rear-end automobile collision case? The court also clarifies when the sudden-emergency doctrine applies.
Holding
Yes, the district court erred in giving the sudden-emergency jury instruction. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Rule
The sudden-emergency instruction is appropriate only when unexpected conditions confront the actor requesting the instruction and the actor was otherwise exercising reasonable care. The proponent must show they were suddenly placed in peril through no negligence of their own and acted as a reasonably prudent person. There must be evidence of a sudden and unforeseeable change in conditions. The doctrine applies to the party facing the emergency, not a party who creates their own emergency through negligence, such as following too closely.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.