Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)TortsMedium
A city bus driver, while on her route, suffered a sudden and unexpected heart attack, causing her to lose control of the bus and collide with a parked car. The driver had no prior history of heart conditions and had passed all required medical examinations. The owner of the parked car sued the bus driver for negligence. Which defense is the bus driver most likely to successfully invoke?
- AAssumption of Risk
- BContributory Negligence
- CSudden Emergency
- DUnavoidable Accident
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Sudden Emergency
The sudden emergency doctrine applies when a person is confronted with an unforeseen and sudden peril not of their own making, and acts reasonably under the circumstances. The heart attack, being sudden and unexpected, fits this description, making it difficult to find the driver negligent for losing control.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Assumption of risk requires the plaintiff to knowingly and voluntarily encounter a known risk. The owner of a parked car does not assume the risk of a driver having a sudden medical emergency.
- B. Contributory negligence would apply if the parked car owner contributed to the accident, which is not indicated in the scenario.
- D. While the accident was perhaps unavoidable, 'sudden emergency' is a more precise and legally recognized defense for this specific type of unforeseen medical event causing a loss of control.
Sudden Emergency Doctrine
A defense in negligence cases stating that a person confronted with a sudden, unforeseen peril not of their own making is not negligent if they act as a reasonably prudent person would under the same emergency conditions.
- The emergency must be sudden and unexpected.
- The emergency must not be of the actor's own making.
- The actor's response must be reasonable under the emergency circumstances.
Memory trick: Emergencies demand SUDDEN, reasonable responses.