Pa. Supreme Court to Hear Case Over Sudden Emergency Doctrine
The high court will hear arguments on the doctrine's applicability in the case of a pedestrian struck by a car at night and whether the trial court's jury instruction erroneously relieved the defendant motorist of his legal duty.
October 03, 2019 at 10:15 AM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on the "sudden emergency doctrine" and its applicability in the case of a pedestrian struck by a car at night.
The justices granted allocatur in Graham v. Check on Sept. 30 and are set to tackle a single question: "When the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's jury instruction concerning the sudden emergency doctrine, did the court erroneously relieve the defendant motorist of his legal duty to a visible pedestrian in a crosswalk?"
Previously, the Superior Court upheld a judgment against Larry Check, who struck pedestrian Francis Graham with his vehicle at a Pittsburgh intersection.
According to Superior Court Judge Eugene Strassburger's March 19 opinion, the light was red when Graham walked into the intersection. It was dark with little ambient light and Graham wore dark clothing.
"Meanwhile, Check was driving a vehicle traveling on Route 30 eastbound. The headlights of Check's vehicle were on, Check was not on his cell phone or otherwise being unattentive, and he was traveling below the speed limit," Strassburger said. "Check testified he was approaching the intersection when the light turned to green, but he could not see Graham because it was dark and another vehicle driven by Joseph Millach obstructed his view."
Check braked but could not avoid hitting Graham. The pedestrian subsequently sued, but the jury found that Check was not negligent.
Graham argued on appeal that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine, which "is available as a defense to a party who suddenly and unexpectedly finds him or herself confronted with a perilous situation which permits little or no opportunity to apprehend the situation and act accordingly," according to Strassburger.
Check argued that he was unable to act in time to avoid the accident and that he otherwise responded reasonably, so he was shielded by the doctrine. Graham countered that the doctrine didn't apply because he was in a crosswalk and Check was familiar with the roads. He argued that Check should have anticipated someone crossing the street.
Strassburger said Check drove those roads for 30 years to and from work and rarely saw anyone crossing the street. Both Check and Millach testified that it was dark and visibility was poor.
"As soon as he saw Graham, who by then was approaching his lane, Check slammed on his brakes," Strassburger said. "Graham was clearly not stationary in the cross walk. Although Graham argues Check was inattentive, Check's unrebutted testimony established that the headlights of his vehicle were on, and he was not on his cell phone or otherwise preoccupied. Even Graham's own testimony indicated that Check was traveling well below the speed limit."
He continued, "Thus, there were sufficient facts in the record to support the trial court's decision to instruct the jury regarding the sudden emergency doctrine, leaving it to the jury to decide whether or not Graham's presence in the crosswalk presented a sudden emergency to Check."
Elizabeth Jenkins of John A. Caputo & Associates represents Graham and did not return a call seeking comment. Robert Loch of Robb Leonard Mulvihill represents Check and also did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readEckert Seamans Snags Reed Smith Global Financial Intelligence Director
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250