Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court decided a case that will surely
have an impact (no pun intended) on those with automobile accident
cases, in the future. In the case of Hancock-Underwood,
the Virginia Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the trial
court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on "unavoidable accident"
and "sudden emergency". In the past these jury instructions, in my
opinion, were used by defense lawyers to unjustly escape liability for
their clients. In this case the plaintiff/ injured party was traveling
on Route 130 in Virginia, with his family, when he saw an oncoming van
cross the center line and head straight towards him. The plaintiff who
was driving a truck, with a trailer in tow, moved over to the should as
far as he could but he was still struck. The van operator was killed in
the crash and the plaintiff was severely injured.
The Estate of the defendant van operator alleged that he suffered an acute medical crisis when he was driving his van. The Estate sought jury instructions on both the "unavoidable accident" and "sudden emergency doctrines". The trial court refused to give these instructions. The majority of courts in the United States do not approve of the "unavoidable accident instruction" .The Virginia Supreme Court joined the majority of courts across the nation in holding that the "unavoidable accident instruction" should no longer be given. The Court stated among other things, that the instruction overemphasizes the defendant's case and is apt to confuse and mislead the jury. I could not agree more this opinion.
With respect to the "sudden emergency" instruction, the Court held that the trial court correctly denied this instruction as well. A "sudden emergency" instruction allows the jury to consider whether the person confronted with the sudden emergency "acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances". The Court restated its prior position that the instruction should rarely be given, but it also did not outright refuse to uphold this instruction in future cases. The Court decided that the jury instruction, as drafted by the defendant, was no appropriate and was not supported by the evidence. The Court cited with approval the trial court's reasoning that the defendant driver did not take immediate action under the defendant's theory of the case, as he was unconscious. This case does a good job of illustrating how crucial it is to hire a good attorney. Many attorneys would have probably allowed these two jury instructions to be read to the jury. As noted by the Virginia Supreme Court, these instructions should rarely be given and can confuse a jury. Had theses instructions been allowed, the defendant driver, likely would have escaped liability.
The Estate of the defendant van operator alleged that he suffered an acute medical crisis when he was driving his van. The Estate sought jury instructions on both the "unavoidable accident" and "sudden emergency doctrines". The trial court refused to give these instructions. The majority of courts in the United States do not approve of the "unavoidable accident instruction" .The Virginia Supreme Court joined the majority of courts across the nation in holding that the "unavoidable accident instruction" should no longer be given. The Court stated among other things, that the instruction overemphasizes the defendant's case and is apt to confuse and mislead the jury. I could not agree more this opinion.
With respect to the "sudden emergency" instruction, the Court held that the trial court correctly denied this instruction as well. A "sudden emergency" instruction allows the jury to consider whether the person confronted with the sudden emergency "acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances". The Court restated its prior position that the instruction should rarely be given, but it also did not outright refuse to uphold this instruction in future cases. The Court decided that the jury instruction, as drafted by the defendant, was no appropriate and was not supported by the evidence. The Court cited with approval the trial court's reasoning that the defendant driver did not take immediate action under the defendant's theory of the case, as he was unconscious. This case does a good job of illustrating how crucial it is to hire a good attorney. Many attorneys would have probably allowed these two jury instructions to be read to the jury. As noted by the Virginia Supreme Court, these instructions should rarely be given and can confuse a jury. Had theses instructions been allowed, the defendant driver, likely would have escaped liability.
Leave a comment