Legal Memoradum
Join now to read essay Legal Memoradum
ARGUMENT
THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THE ALABAMA “SUDDEN EMERGENCY DOCTRINE”.
Defendant, Tiffany Alexis, is entitled to relief from liability arising from the accident with Mr. Gibson under the Alabama “Sudden Emergency Doctrine.” The sudden emergency doctrine states that “one who, without fault on his part, is suddenly and unexpectedly placed in perilous situation, so as to be compelled to act instantly and without opportunity for exercise of deliberate judgment, is not chargeable with negligence if, in attempting to escape from peril or to minimize threatened injury, he acts as a person of reasonable prudence would or might have acted in same or similar situation has no application to, and cannot be invoked by, one who wrongfully and voluntarily puts himself in such position of danger.” Swindall v. Speigner, 214 So.2d 436 Ala.,(1968).
A. Miss Alexis was not at fault and did not cause the emergency.
“One who has by own conduct brought about sudden peril may not invoke the sudden emergency doctrine as a defense.” Mitchell v. Johnson, 641 So.2d 238 Ala.,1994 Although Ms. Alexis was pulled over to the side of the road due to a diabetic spell, she did not bring about the sudden peril. She pulled over and got out of the lane of traffic the moment she began to feel ill. This is not evidence of someone who is the cause of an emergency but rather of someone who saw the possibility of danger and acted in such a way to avoid it.
In Mitchell v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d. 238, the sudden emergency doctrine did not apply because the driver testified that she had neither slowed down nor applied her brakes and was traveling at speed that would not have allowed her time to stop, so her conduct caused the sudden peril. If Miss Alexis would have stopped her car in the middle of the road, then she would have been the cause of the sudden emergency. Since she pulled out of the road and did not cause the emergency, the sudden emergency doctrine is available to her. Miss Alexis was not the proximate cause of the emergency and should be granted relief under the sudden emergency doctrine.
B. Miss Alexis did not have the opportunity for deliberate judgment.
Sudden emergency doctrine generally states that if a motorist is faced with an emergency situation through no fault of his own, he is not to be held to same correctness of judgment and action as if he had had the time and