Opinion

McKEE BY McKEE v. Evans

  • 380 Pa. Super. 120
  • 551 A.2d 260
  • 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3663
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Nov 30, 1988
Status
Published
Author
Wieand
On the bench
Brosky, Wieand, McEwen, Olszewski, Beck, Tamilia, Kelly, Popovich, Johnson
Cited by
38 cases

concluding that the driver being chased had not faced a sudden emergency, since he had several options available and time to choose any one of them in a rational, conscious manner, the court declared that this driver should not be permitted to reap the benefit of his own folly and that, therefore, he was not entitled to a jury charge on sudden emergency.

How later courts described this case

  • concluding that the driver being chased had not faced a sudden emergency, since he had several options available and time to choose any one of them in a rational, conscious manner, the court declared that this driver should not be permitted to reap the benefit of his own folly and that, therefore, he was not entitled to a jury charge on sudden emergency.
  • finding that where jury found defendant negligent, but also determined that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the subject accident, new trial was warranted on both liability and damages
  • defendant driver's testimony that he was "probably" intoxicated and "probably" above the blood alcohol limit properly admitted
  • "One invoking the defense of sudden emergency cannot be responsible for creating that very peril . . . . Thus, one driving carelessly or recklessly cannot avail himself of the rule's protection, since, normally, the peril would not have arisen in the first instance."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WIEAND, Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the decision of the majority to award a new trial. In my judgment, the trial court’s jury instruction on the sudden emergency doctrine was unnecessary and unwarranted. It would have been adequate to instruct the jury to determine whether Linden had exercised reasonable care in view of the circumstances with which he was confronted. I would also hold that it was error to permit Officer Vallone to express an opinion regarding the location of the impact when, as Officer Vallone conceded, her opin *167 ion was based in part upon the extra-judicial statements of witnesses at the scene of the accident.

OLSZEWSKI, J., joins.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.