ESLINGER v RINGSBY TRUCK LINES I
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-149 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA VANESSA ESLINGER and LANETTE ESLINGER, individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of Estate of Walter and Clare Eslinger, Plaintiffs and Appellants, VS. RINGSBY TRUCK LINES, INC., and STATE OF MONTANA, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Hon. James Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Morrison Law Offices, Missoula, Montana Carey Matovich argued and Joan Jonkel argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Gary Graham argued, and Paul Meismer argued, Missoula, Montana J. Michael Young, Dept. of Administration, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: K'OV 1 r f m g September 18, 1981 W ~ 1 2 198f V Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a w r o n g f u l d e a t h a c t i o n i n which p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l f r o m a f i n a l judgment and d e n i a l o f t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a new trial District, of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Fourth J u d i c i a l f o l l o w i n g a j u r y v e r d i c t which found p l a i n t i f f s ' d e c e d e n t 1 0 0 p e r c e n t n e g l i g e n t and d e f e n d a n t s R i n g s b y T r u c k L i n e s and t h e S t a t e o f Montana t o be f r e e o f a n y n e g l i g e n c e . P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l a s t o R i n g s b y Truck L i n e s o n l y . Walter and C l a i r e E s l i n g e r were k i l l e d when a t r u c k b e l o n g i n g t o Ringsby Truck L i n e s c o l l i d e d w i t h t h e E s l i n g e r automobile. Skiles. The t r u c k was d r i v e n by The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d employee, a t 1 2 : 1 5 p.m., 1 9 7 8 , on Highway 93 a t R a v a l l i , snow c o v e r e d and s l i c k ; an Montana. Howard January 18, The roadway was t h e t e m p e r a t u r e was b e t w e e n 20 and 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d n e a r t h e T- j u n c t i o n formed by U.S. Highway 93 and Montana Highway 200. Highway 93 is s t r a i g h t and r e l a t i v e l y f l a t t h r o u g h R a v a l l i b u t c h a n g e s a s t h e highway p r o c e e d s n o r t h up R a v a l l i H i l l . The B i s o n C a f e i s l o c a t e d on Highway 9 3 , d i r e c t l y a d j a c e n t t o t h e a c c i d e n t site. Several witnesses were in the cafe and testified regarding the accident. W a l t e r E s l i n g e r was d r i v i n g h i s 1967 C h e v r o l e t down Ravalli H i l l in the southbound lane of U.S. A t t h e same t i m e , C l a i r e E s l i n g e r was h i s p a s s e n g e r . S k i l e s was d r i v i n g a 1 9 7 3 Mack t r a i l e r - t r a c t o r i n t h e n o r t h b o u n d l a n e o f Highway 93. i n t e r s e c t i o n caused differ sharply from the car this point Howard combination snow-packed to fishtail. in 93. A s t h e C h e v r o l e t came down t h e h i l l and c r o s s e d t h e j u n c t i o n , the Highway their ruts a t The p a r t i e s theories of the subsequent events. Appellants claimed Eslinger regained control; however, the driver of the Ringsby truck abruptly locked his brakes and lost control of his vehicle. The trailer jack- knifed and the truck skidded across the centerline into the southbound lane and the Eslinger vehicle. According to appellants, the direct and proximate cause of the collision and the wrongful deaths of the Eslingers was the negligence of the truck driver in failing to (1) keep a proper lookout; (2) maintain reasonable control of the truck; (3) yield one half of the roadway; and (4) operate at a reasonable speed. Respondent Ringsby claimed that Eslinger lost control of his vehicle at the intersection and skidded head-on into the truck's proper lane. An integral part of Ringsby's theory was the emergency created for the Ringsby driver when Eslinger 's vehicle began to fishtail. momentary application of the Ringsby claimed the truck's brakes appropriate response to a perilous situation. was an The emergency instruction given was therefore proper. Howard Skiles, the truck driver, did not appear at trial. His testimony was entered by deposition. Several witnesses testified that the Eslinger vehicle was fishtailing prior to the accident. The truck driver's testimony by deposition of his perceptions and actions is relevant to the use of the sudden emergency doctrine. Driver Skiles testified he was familiar with the road and aware of the icy, unsanded conditions. He further testified: "Q. Could you pinpoint for us just how far away the vehicle was when you first saw it? A. Well, no, I can't. "Q. Could you estimate it perhaps in car lengths? A. Not really. I seen him cominq down ........................ v e r g o t t o t h e t h e h i l l b e f o r e he e 'unction. I d i d n ' t p a y t h a t much a t t e n t i o n i o him u n t i l h e got-within one h u n d r e d y a r d s o f me. [Emphasis added.] "Q. So was h e on t h e s t r a i g h t a w a y when you f i r s t began t o p a y a t t e n t i o n t o him? A . Yes. "Q. How l o n g i s your r i g ? Could you estimate that? A. I t is approximately sixty-eight f e e t overall. "Q. Does that include both trailers? A. Yes. Could you d e s c r i b e t h e v e h i c l e t h a t you saw coming i n t h e s o u t h b o u n d l a n e ? A. It was a -- I t w a s n ' t no new c a r b u t i t w a s n ' t no r e a l o l d one e i t h e r . "Q. "Q. Was i t a l a r g e c a r o r a s m a l l c a r ? A. It wasn't neither. I t was a b o u t a mediumsize car. "Q. And t h e c o l o r ? A. Blue, I believe. "Q. When you f i r s t p e r c e i v e d t h e c a r and f i r s t n o t i c e d i t , i t was o n t h e s t r a i g h t a w a y ? A. Yes. "Q. Could you t h e n d e s c r i b e f o r u s w h a t happened n e x t ? A. He j u s t -- when I f i r s t r e a l l y n o t i c e d him, he was coming q u i t e fairly fast. "Q. Could you e s t i m a t e h i s s p e e d ? A . No, I w o u l d n ' t e v e n t r y b e c a u s e h e was coming r i g h t s t r a i g h t a t me b u t h e ' s coming f a s t and t h a t ' s -- I ' m n o t h e r e t o e s t i m a t e s p e e d s anyway. "Q. Did you t e s t i f y what y o u r t h i s t i m e ? A. Yes. "Q. How f a s t was twenty-f i v e . that again? s p e e d was a t A. About "Q. Was t h e o t h e r c a r a t a c o m p a r a b l e r a t e o f s p e e d would you s a y ? A . A l o t faster I would s a y b u t how much f a s t e r I w o u l d n ' t know. "Q. So t h e c a r i s coming s t r a i g h t down t h e s o u t h b o u n d l a n e t o w a r d s you and t h e n w h a t A. E e went a c r o s s t h e j u n c t i o n happens? t h e r e where t h i s compact snow and i c e i s r u t t y , g o t r u t s i n i t k i n d o f , a n d when h e g o t p a s t , when he c r o s s e d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , h e s t a r t e d t o go l i k e t h a t ( i n d i c a t i n g ) . "Q. A. Is h e on t h e s t r a i g h t w a y a t t h i s t i m e ? Yes . ' I The v e h i c l e s s u b s e q u e n t l y c o l l i d e d a t t h e l e f t f r o n t bumper of the truck Several witnesses and testified f i v e seconds a p a r t . was found in the l e f t f r o n t door of they heard two the car. impacts up to The o n l y e v i d e n c e o f c o l l i s i o n d e b r i s the southbound (Eslinger's) lane, thus s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e r e p o r t and t e s t i m o n y o f t h e Montana Highway P a t r o l o f f i c e r t h a t t h e p o i n t o f i m p a c t was i n t h e southbound l a n e . from the second occurred in the R i n g s b y c l a i m s t h a t t h e d e b r i s was collision and northbound that lane. the It first claims collision that i n v e s t i g a t o r s were d e l a y e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e h o u r , in the northbound lane around the since traffic accident destroyed the p h y s i c a l evidence of t h e f i r s t c o l l i s i o n . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r r e v i e w : 1. Whether t h e g i v i n g o f a s u d d e n emergency i n s t r u c - t i o n was e r r o n e o u s u n d e r whether such an the facts in the instant case, or instruction should be given under any circumstances. 2. of Whether t h e a l l e g e d p r i o r i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t the truck driver t a k e n by a highway p a t r o l o f f i c e r was p r o p e r l y r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t . The i s s u e o f t h e emergency i n s t r u c t i o n f i r s t c o n c e r n s t h e s u d d e n emergency i n s t r u c t i o n and s e c o n d a r i l y t h e g i v i n g of the instruction in conjunction i n s t r u c t i o n on y i e l d i n g o n e - h a l f with the statutory of t h e roadway. The g i v e n s u d d e n emergency i n s t r u c t i o n , Instruction No. 1 8 , i s a s f o l l o w s : "A s u d d e n emergency e x i s t s when t h e d r i v e r o f a motor v e h i c l e i s s u d d e n l y p l a c e d i n a p o s i t i o n of imminent p e r i l , g r e a t mental stress, or danger, which situation has not but been brought about by his own negligence, in which instant action is necessary to avoid a threatened danger. But the driver must use that care which the ordinary prudent person w o u l d e x e r c i s e u n d e r l i k e or s i m i l a r .................................... circumstances. One suddenly confronted with a peril through no fault of his own, who in attempting to escape does not choose the best or safest way should not be held negligent because of such choice, unless it was so hazardous that an ordinary prudent person would not have made [it] under similar circumstances." (Emphasis supplied.) Appellants claim the District Court further erred by giving the sudden emergency instruction together with the following instruction on yielding one-half of the roadway. Instruction No. 9 provided: "Under the statutes of the State of Montana, the operator of a motor vehicle is obligated to yield one half of the roadway to oncoming traffic. If the operator of a motor vehicle fails to yield one-half of the roadway and collides with the vehicle proceeding in the opposite direction in its lane of traffic, thenof the - the operator --- vehicle failinq to yield one half of the roadway is negligent." (Emphasis supplied.) Appellants contend the two instructions, not being compatible, confused the jury and, thus, prevented a fair trial. $fi Presser v. Anderson (1965), 146 Mont. 396, 407 P.2d A41; Adami v. Murphy (1945). 118 Mont. 172, 164 P.2d 150. Appellants further contend sudden emergency that the- instruction is an ...................... exceEtion to the g e n e r a l rule that -----------violation of a safety statute is negligence per se. Lyndes v. Scofield (1979), 180 Mont. 177, 589 P.2d 1000, 36 St.Rep. 185; Duchesneau v. Silver Bow County (1971), 158 Mont. 369, 492 P.2d 926. emergency Appellants contend further that the sudden doctrine has a limited application. In the instant case, the evidence did not present an "emergency" situation as envisioned by the doctrine. The slippery highway was foreseeable; unavailable. Boge v. therefore, the doctrine Jack Link Truck Line, Inc. is (Iowa Respondent Ringsby contends that a sudden emergency instruction and a statutory violation instruction do not necessarily conflict, Hood v. Williamson (1972), 7 Wash.App. 355, 499 P.2d 68, and NeSmith v. Bowden (1977), 17 Wash.App. 602, 563 P.2d 1322, and that their theory of the accident (Eslinger crossed situation) was the centerline causing an emergency supported by the evidence presented. Therefore, respondent was entitled to present its theory to the jury by proper instruction. Company (1974), 10 Wash.App. Locker v. Sammons Trucking 899, 520 P.2d 939. The appellants' theory of preexisting negligence by Skiles is not sufficient for excluding a sudden emergency situation. Barbieri v. Jennings (1976), 90 N.M. 83, 559 P.2d 1210. The "emergency" situation was the fishtailing of appellants' car and not the slippery condition of the road. Drivers need not anticipate all events. Erickson v. Perrett (1976), 169 Mont. 167, 545 P.2d 1074. Respondent contends none of the authority cited by appellants address the emergency of an oncoming car in the wrong lane. The doctrine of sudden emergency was first adopted in Montana in the case of Peabody v. Northern Pac. Railway Co. (1927), 80 Mont. 492, 497, 261 P. 261, 262: "The rule as stated generally is that: in the authorities "'One who, in a sudden emergency, acts according to his best judgment, or who, because of want of time in which to form a judgment omits to act in the most judicious manner, is not chargeable with negligence. . act or omission . . may be Such called a mistake, but not carelessness.' . . . (Citations omitted.)" The sudden emergency doctrine has been recently criticized, and its application limited in a recent decision of this Court. In Kudrna v. Comet Corp. (1977), 175 Mont. 29, 572 P.2d 183, we stated: "While we do not reject the concept of sudden emergency, we emphasize that it has limited application in the law of negligence, and trial courts should be very cautious in instructing the jury on sudden emergency. In Finley v. Wiley, 103 N.J.Super. 95, 246 A.2d 715 (1968), the court criticized the sudden emergency rule: "'Further we entertain grave doubt whether a sudden emergency charge should ever be given in an ordinary automobile a c c i d e n t case. ..................... T h e r e i s a modern view that it is ----------_---------------------argumentative, unnecessary, and confusing, _ and should be eliminated . . . I1 I . . . defendant was faced with no more than an ever da traffic r o b he -------y--y---------~ - l e mfor whichshould have been prepared. - ------------------y The ordinar rules li ence ----_--_--- o f n e g--g_----------w e r e a ~ ~ l i c a b land -------- e afforded a s u f f i c i e n t g --g ---y w h i c h to au e b ---_-----------_appraise his conduct.' "Further, this Court in Erickson v. Perrett, 169 Mont. 167, 545 P.2d 1074, 33 St.Rep. 109 (1976) cited Prosser on Torts, 4th ed., p. 170, with approval as to the limited application of the rule: "'A further qualification [to the sudden emergency ruie] which must be made is that some "emergencies" must be anticipated, and the actor must be prepared to meet them when he engages- an activity in whrch they are inlikely to arise. Thus under present day traffic conditions, any driver of an automobile must be prepared for the sudden appearance of obstacles in the highway .I (Bracketed material added.)" 572 P.2d at 191. (Emphasis supplied.) .. Professor Prosser's complete discussion of the emergency doctrine defines an emergency as a "sudden or unexpected event or combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action." Prosser on Torts, 4th ed., at 169. Other limitations not quoted in Kudrna, supra, are: "There are, however, a number of limitations which have hedged the 'emergency' rule. It s does not mean that any different standard i to- applied in the emergency. The conduct be required is still that of a reasonable man under the circumstances, as they would appear to one who was using proper --------- the care, and emergency is only- of the circumstances. one An objective standard must still be applied, and the actor's own judgment or impulse is still not the sole criterion. He may still be found to be negligent if, notwithstandinq the e e n c , h i s a c t s are found ----- m e r g---y..........................to be unreasonable. - 'emergency doctrine' is Theapplied only where the situation which arises is sudden and unexpected, and such- to as------------------ - -deprive the actor of reasonable opportunity for deliberation and considered decision. -------Furthermore, it obviously cannot serve to excuse the actor when the emergency has been created through his own negligence, since he cannot be permitted to shield himself behind a situation resulting from his own fault. It is, however, not the conduct after the emergency has arisen which is not excused, but the prior negligence; and where the question is one of the last clear chance, the defendant may still not be liable." (Emphasis supplied.) (Footnotes omitted.) Prosser, supra, at 169. Before an instruction on the doctrine of sudden emergency is given, the evidence should be sufficient to support a finding that: (1) the claimed emergency actually or apparently existed; (2) the perilous situation was not created or contributed to by the person confronted; (3) alternative courses of action in meeting the emergency were open to such person or there was an opportunity to take some action to avert the threatened casualty; and (4) the action or course taken was such as would or might have been taken by a person of reasonable prudence in the same or similar situation. Annot., 80 A.L.R.2d 1 (1961). The limited application of the sudden emergency doctrine in automobile cases and the reasons therefor are stated in Kudrna. In the "emergency" relied upon by instant case, assuming respondent that preceded the the accident was the fishtailing of the Eslinger vehicle, the evidence cannot be said to preclude the concurrent negligence of the truck driver Skiles, who testified, ". . . I didn't pay that much attention to him until he got within one hundred yards of me." "This Court has recognized the doctrine of sudden emergency, but a party asserting sudden emergency cannot obtain the benefit of that rule where the emergency itself has been created [or contributed to] by the actor's own negligent or other tortious conduct." 189. Kudrna, 572 P.2d at (The bracketed language reflects the broader rule of other jurisdictions which denotes consideration of comparative negligence principles.) Further, the doctrine's requirement that the actor be deprived of "reasonable opportunity for deliberation," is doubtful here. The driver of the truck did not "pay that much attention to him [Eslinger] until he got within one hundred road yards." The was snow-covered and slick. Assuming, as respondent argues, that the collision occurred in the northbound lane, its driver was not confronted with a decision precipitated by an emergency. recognition of the Eslinger The time between his vehicle and the collision precluded a decision by him, and, therefore, the doctrine cannot be applied. The evidence, viewed Ringsby ( e ., adopting in a light most favorable to its theory of the case) refutes Ringsby's claim of the propriety of the instruction. Under the doctrine when an actor who, forced by exigencies, makes less than the optimal decision, the trier of fact should not necessarily find negligence but rather consider the emergency actor's and, accordingly, conduct.. As the s t a t e d by reasonableness t h i s Court, d o c t r i n e is a r e i t e r a t i o n of the However, were if no alternatives of the t h e emergency r e a s o n a b l e man s t a n d a r d . available to the truck d r i v e r , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n , a g a i n , was n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . There was no c l a i m h e r e o f a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f c o n d u c t f a c i n g t h e t r u c k d r i v e r f o l l o w i n g h i s r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e emergency. C o n s i d e r a t i o n b e i n g g i v e n t o a l l t h e f a c t s i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o r e s p o n d e n t , w e must a g r e e w i t h a p p e l l a n t s t h a t t h e g i v i n g o f I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 8 was p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r . The s u d d e n emergency d o c t r i n e a d m o n i t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n Kudrna, supra, jurisdiction's i s we11 t a k e n , adoption of and now, in view t h e d o c t r i n e of of this comparative n e g l i g e n c e , w e would a t t h i s t i m e admonish t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n n o t be g i v e n i n a n o r d i n a r y a u t o m o b i l e accident case. ordinary rules It of is unnecessary negligence are and confusing. applicable and The afford a s u f f i c i e n t g a u g e by which t o a p p r a i s e c o n d u c t . T h i s does n o t c r e a t e a d i f f e r e n t standard or diminish t h e e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d t o be a p p l i e d i n a n emergency. The c o n d u c t r e q u i r e d i s s t i l l t h a t o f a r e a s o n a b l e man u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s t h e y would a p p e a r t o o n e u s i n g p r o p e r c a r e . The emergency i s o n l y o n e o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Ringsby d e v o t e s a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of i t s argument to support does not the proposition inherently that conflict v i o l a t i o n of a s a f e t y s t a t u t e . NeSmith v . Bowden, supra. an emergency with Hood v . an instruction instruction Williamson, on supra; T h i s p r o p o s i t i o n is s u p p o r t e d by Montana c a s e law a s w e l l : "The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t violation of the statute constituted n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of l a w . I t is w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n v o l u n t a r y v i o l a t i o n of a s t a t u t e i n an emergency due t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s beyond the actor's control does not Duchesneau v . c o n s t i t u t e negligence per se. Mack T r u c k , I n c . ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 8 Mont. 3 6 9 , 3 7 7 , 492 P.2d 9 2 6 , 9 3 0 . " Lyndes v . S c o f i e l d , s u p r a , 589 P.2d a t 1 0 0 4 . W h i l e t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f a n e m e r g e n c y and n e g l i g e n c e per se instruction is not necessarily error, the d e t e r m i n a t i v e i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l i s a somewhat d i f f e r e n t legal issue; i .e., whether t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d j u s t i f i e d a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a s a m a t t e r o f law. The appellants finally contend the trial court's r e f u s a l t o a l l o w i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a s t a t e m e n t g i v e n by d r i v e r S k i l e s t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway p a t r o l o f f i c e r s h o r t l y after the a c c i d e n t was prejudicial and reversible The e v i d e n c e was o f f e r e d a s e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e o f inconsistent statement. impeach S k i l e s ' that he had not At trial, error. a prior t h e E s l i n g e r s planned t o c o n t e n t i o n , made i n h i s d e p o s e d t e s t i m o n y , lost control. ~n h i s testimony, skiles said: " I s t a r t e d t o p u l l t o t h e r i g h t and I h i t my b r a k e s and I s e e n t h a t w a s n ' t t h e r i g h t t h i n g t o d o s o I g o t r i g h t back o f f them and t h e v e h i c l e s t a r t e d t o l o c k up." The e x c l u d e d s t a t e m e n t made t o t h e p a t r o l o f f i c e r : " I t h e n t a p p e d my b r a k e s and saw my v e h i c l e was s t a r t i n g t o s k i d , s o I a c c e l e r a t e d i n a n a t t e m ~ tt of ----- ---o r e g a i n c o n t r o l -m y v e h i c l e . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Although the officer's report was excluded, the o f f i c e r was a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y r e g a r d i n g h i s i n t e r v i e w w i t h Skiles. "Q. With r e s p e c t t o Howard S k i l e s , t h e d r i v e r o f t h e R i n g s b y t r u c k , d i d you i n t e r v i e w him i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t ? A . A p p r o x i m a t e l y two h o u r s a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t . "Q. Yes, T h i s was i n S t . sir. Ignatius, was i t ? A. "Q. He was t a k e n t h e r e , I b e l i e v e , f o r m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n , and you i n t e r v i e w e d him a t t h a t t i m e ? A. Yes, I d i d . "Q. Did h e t e l l you t h a t when t h e E s l i n g e r c a r came o f f t h e h i l l i t f i s h t a i l e d , a n d t h a t he h i t h i s b r a k e s ? A . Yes, h e d i d . "Q. Did h e t e l l you t h a t t h e n t h e t r a i l e r o n h i s t r u c k s t a r t e d t o come a r o u n d on him? A . Yes, he d i d . "Q. Did h e t e l l you t h a t h e l o s t c o n t r o l o f ( E m ~ h a s i ssuwh i s truck? A. Y e s . he did." , plied.) & & The t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p a t r o l o f f i c e r p r o v i d e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same e v i d e n c e a s t h e e x c l u d e d s t a t e m e n t and t h e exclusion M.R.Civ.P. of the exhibit was harmless error. Rule 61, T h i s i s p r o b a b l y more t r u e i n t h i s c a u s e b e c a u s e t h e d r i v e r was n o t p r e s e n t i n c o u r t and a l l t e s t i m o n y was by deposition. Further, ". . . e r r o r c a n n o t be p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e e x c l u s i o n o f e v i d e n c e a t one s t a g e o f a t r i a l , same e v i d e n c e Bank 1098. & is a d m i t t e d T r u s t Co. thereafter." ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 75 Mont. See a l s o K r a f t v. 369, S t a t e v. 384, if American 243 P. P a t t y n ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 3 5 Mont. the 1093, 5 7 2 , 342 P.2d 1 0 6 3 . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is r e v e r s e d , t h e c a u s e i s remanded f o r a new t r i a l . Justice and W concur: e Chief J u s t i c e L ' Justices Hon&rable J o h n M. McCarvel , ~ i s y r i c t udge, s i t t i n g i n J p l a c e o f Mr. J u s t i c e F r a n k B . Morrison, J r . Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea c o n c u r r i n g : I a g r e e t h a t t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d n o t have been g i v e n , t h a t i t was p r e j u d i c i a l , and t h e r e f o r e t h a t a new t r i a l s h o u l d be g r a n t e d . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t it i s t i m e f o r t h e demise of t h e sudden-emergency i n s t r u c t i o n i n any s i t u a t i o n . G e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s on n e g l i g e n c e a r e f u l l y c a p a b l e of p r o p e r l y i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y . I want t o emphasize, however, a f a c t o r t h a t h a s n o t been mentioned i n t h e m a j o r i t y opinion--the d e f e n d a n t a r g u e d t h e sudden emergency t o t h e j u r y and t h e r e f o r e t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t now i n a p o s i t i o n t o c o n t e n d t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was h a r m l e s s . A t t h e p r e t r i a l hearing, t h e p l a i n t i f f s had no i d e a t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t would r e l y on a sudden emergency as a t l e a s t one of t h e t h e o r i e s e x o n e r a t i n g i t from l i a b i l i t y . This t h e o r y was f i r s t p r e s e n t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e end of t h e c a s e d u r i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t of i n s t r u c t i o n s . The i n s t r u c t i o n was g i v e n o v e r t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' o b j e c t i o n . Although it was n o t a r g u e d i n t h e b r i e f s , t h e d e f e n d a n t t r u c k l i n e s a r g u e d a t t h e h e a r i n g of t h i s a p p e a l , t h a t , i n any e v e n t , t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n was h a r m l e s s e r r o r . T h i s argument w a s based on t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n t e n t i o n t h a t e a c h s i d e approached t h e c a s e knowing t h a t t h e c a s e would t u r n on which o f t h e v e h i c l e s was on t h e wrong s i d e of t h e r o a d a t t h e t i m e o f impact. I f t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' v e h i c l e w a s i n t h e northbound l a n e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k , t h e d e f e n d a n t t r u c k l i n e s would prevail. But i f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u c k w a s i n t h e southbound l a n e of t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t h e t i m e of t h e i m p a c t , t h e p l a i n t i f f s would p r e v a i l . For t h i s reason, t h e defendant t r u c k l i n e s argued t h a t t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n was h a r m l e s s e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e j u r y must have found t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' v e h i c l e was i n t h e northbound l a n e o f t h e defendant's t r u c k a t t h e time of impact. But d u r i n g t h e f i n a l arguments t o t h e j u r y , d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l d i d n o t downgrade t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and e f f e c t of t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n . R a t h e r , he emphasized t o t h e j u r y t h a t i t would p r o b a b l y be a v i t a l a i d i n h e l p i n g t h e jury reach a decision. Counsel used t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n as f o l l o w s i n h i s f i n a l argument: ". . . There h a s been no t e s t i m o n y by anyone i n t h i s case t h a t t h a t truck w a s traveling a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a slow, c a r e f u l speed u n t i l I'm t o a s k t h a t you a - going - - - - sudden emergency. go - - - - -- i n s t r u c t i o n on t o t h e j u r y and r e a d t h e sudden emergency, b e c a u s e I ' m n o t g o i n g to t a l k a b o u t it. You- - i t , - you a p p l y t h a t and - read i n s t r-u c t i o n - -e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e . " t o th (Emphas i s --. added. ) Although d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d i d n o t a g a i n mention t h e i n s t r u c t i o n , t h e e n t i r e c a s e based on t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f t h e t r u c k d r i v e r r e a d i n t o e v i d e n c e , and i n p a r t r e a d a g a i n t o t h e j u r y by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l i n f i n a l argument, was t h a t t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e t r u c k d r i v e r s h o u l d be judged by t h e f a c t t h a t he t o o k a c t i o n i n an emergency s i t u a t i o n . Obviously t h e d e f e n s e wanted t h e j u r y t o judge t h e t r u c k d r i v e r ' s c o n d u c t based f i r s t on t h e f a c t t h a t h e had responded t o a n emergency s i t u a t i o n . W e do n o t , verdict. of c o u r s e , know how t h e j u r y r e a c h e d i t s But t h e j u r y c o u l d have d e c i d e d t h a t t h e t r u c k w a s i n t h e wrong l a n e of t r a f f i c a t t h e t i m e o f i m p a c t , b u t a l s o t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be h e l d l i a b l e b e c a u s e t h e t r u c k d r i v e r had responded t o an emergency s i t u a t i o n and i n s o d o i n g he c o u l d n o t c o n t r o l t h e movement of h i s t r u c k a f t e r he a p p l i e d h i s brakes. O r it i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a p a r t o f t h e j u r y d e c i d e d t h e c a s e on t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' vehicle was in the wrong lane of traffic but that the remainder of the jurors needed for a verdict, based their decision on an emergency situation justifying the truck driver being in the wrong lane of traffic at the time of impact. They could have based their decision on the sudden emergency instruction. Under these circumstances, I cannot accept the defendant truck line's argument that the instruction, if error, was harmless. Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d i s s e n t i n g : I respectfully dissent. The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n s e t s f o r t h t h e f u l l t e x t of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 8 , which i s t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n i n t h i s case. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n i s a d u p l i c a t e of t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n i n Dawe v . D a l l e y ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 73, 504 P.2d 982. I n t h e Dawe c a s e , t h e D a l l e y c a r had f o l l o w e d t h e Dawe v e h i c l e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of a m i l e up t h e n o r t h s i d e of Boulder H i l l on Highway 9 1 i n J e f f e r s o n County. The Dawe c a r was o b s e r v e d t o have d i f f i c u l t y n e g o t i a t i n g t h e h i l l and was f i s h t a i l i n g . When t h e c a r s t a r t e d down t h e s o u t h s i d e , t h e y were t r a v e l i n g no f a s t e r t h a n 1 5 m i l e s p e r h o u r , w i t h D a l l e y t e s t i f y i n g he w a s t r y i n g t o keep 50-75 t h e Dawe v e h i c l e . f e e t behind Upon r e a c h i n g a s h a r p c u r v e t h e Dawe v e h i c l e went o u t of c o n t r o l w i t h f r o n t wheels c o l l i d i n g w i t h a snowbank and t h e r e a r end s l i d i n g around. A t t h i s point D a l l e y t r i e d t o t u r n t o t h e l e f t b u t was u n a b l e t o do s o b e c a u s e of oncoming t r a f f i c . H e t h e n a p p l i e d b r a k e s and s l i d i n t o t h e Dawe v e h i c l e . Based upon t h e s e f a c t s , t h i s C o u r t i n a unanimous d e c i s i o n a g r e e d t h a t i t was p r o p e r t o g i v e t h e sudden emergency i n s t r u c t i o n . The C o u r t s t a t e d : "'We a r e a l s o of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n i n s t r u c t i n g the jury with r e f e r e n c e t o t h e emergency d o c t r i n e . An i n s t r u c t i o n on t h i s t h e o r y s h o u l d always b e g i v e n where i t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t h e o r y of one of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n and where t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by s u c h p a r t y would s u s t a i n a f i n d i n g t h a t he had been c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a sudden p e r i l o r emergency and a c t e d under i t s s t r e s s . ' " 1 6 1 Mont. a t 76, 504 P.2d a t 984. The C o u r t f u r t h e r q u o t e d from t h e Montana r u l e s s t a t e d i n Peabody v . N o r t h e r n Pac. Ry. Co. ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 80 Mont. 492, " ' I f t h e evidence i n t h i s case w e r e s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant a reasonable conclusion t h a t a t t h e time i n question t h e defendant was c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a "sudden emergency," o r t h a t " t h e r e was want of t i m e i n which t o form a judgment", under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a s t h e y a p p e a r e d t o him, - c o u r t s h o u l d have g i v e n the the - o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n s . ' Emphasis s u p p l i e d . " 1 6 1 Mont. a t 76, 504 P.2d a t 984. . . . A t t h e time of t h e t r i a l of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , the h o l d i n g i n Dawe had n o t been m o d i f i e d o r o v e r t u r n e d . N o s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e i s made t o t h i s c a s e i n t h e m a j o r i t y opinion. The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n makes a n e x t e n s i v e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Kudrna c a s e . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e q u o t e d p o r t i o n s of t h a t c a s e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y d i c t a . I n Kudrna t h i s C o u r t found t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e of sudden emergency c o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d b e c a u s e t h e t r u c k d r i v e r had c r e a t e d h i s own emergency by h i s own n e g l i g e n t a c t s . Following t h e q u o t a t i o n from Kudrna and P r o s s e r t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n r e f e r s t o t h e a n n o t a t i o n i n 80 ALR 2d 1 and p o i n t s o u t t h a t b e f o r e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e d o c t r i n e of sudden emergency i s g i v e n , t h e e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t (1) t h e c l a i m e d emergency a c t u a l l y o r apparently existed; ( 2 ) t h e a p p a r e n t s i t u a t i o n was n o t c r e a t e d o r c o n t r i b u t e d t o by t h e p e r s o n c o n f r o n t e d ; (3) a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s of a c t i o n i n meeting t h e emergency w e r e open t o such p e r s o n o r t h e r e was a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a k e some a c t i o n t o a v e r t the threatened casualty; ( 4 ) the action o r c o u r s e t a k e n was s u c h a s would o r m i g h t have been t a k e n by a p e r s o n of r e a s o n a b l e prudence i n t h e same o r s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n . The m a j o r i t y t h e n s e e k s t o a p p l y t h e f a c t s t o t h e f o r e g o i n g r u l e s and a r r i v e s a t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n was improper. W e r e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t h a t t h e r e h a s been a f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t of the majority t o accurately analyze t h e f a c t s i n t h e p r e s e n t case. The e v i d e n c e on t h e p o i n t o f i m p a c t of the vehicles i s i n d i r e c t conflict. The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h e e v i d e n c e o f c o l l i s i o n d e b r i s i n t h e southbound l a n e o f t r a f f i c and t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e highway p a t r o l o f f i c e r t h a t t h e p o i n t of i m p a c t was i n t h e southbound l a n e , t h a t b e i n g t h e l a n e of t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' car. That e v i d e n c e i s c e r t a i n l y s i g n i f i c a n t and i s u n f a v o r a b l e t o t h e However, i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e r e i s defendant. extensive evidence c o n t r a d i c t i n g t h e patrolman's conclusion a s t o t h e p o i n t of i m p a c t . I n a s i m i l a r manner, t h e r e i s e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y which p o s i t i v e l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' car made two complete s p i n s on t h e i c y highway, f i s h t a i l e d back and f o r t h , and s l i d sideways a c r o s s from i t s own l a n e of t r a f f i c i n t o t h e l a n e of t r a f f i c of t h e northbound t r u c k , c o l l i d i n g w i t h t h e t r u c k i n t h e northbound l a n e o f traffic. The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n t h e town of R a v a l l i i n a n a r e a p o s t e d f o r 4 5 m i l e s p e r hour t r a v e l . The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h e t r u c k was d r i v i n g n o r t h a t 25-35 m i l e s p e r hour and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c a r w a s d r i v i n g s o u t h down R a v a l l i H i l l a t a speed of 35 m i l e s p e r hour o r p o s s i b l y faster. T h a t e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e sudden emergency s o f a r as t h e t r u c k d r i v e r w a s concerned was t h e s l i d i n g sideways a c r o s s i n t o h i s t r a f f i c l a n e of t h e E s l i n g e r c a r . Mark F i t c h , 4 0 y e a r s of a g e , w i t h 2 2 y e a r s of d r i v i n g e x p e r i e n c e , was s e a t e d i n t h e Bison C a f e , which i s n e x t t o t h e highway and a d j a c e n t t o t h e p o i n t of c o l l i s i o n . p a r t s of M r . Key F i t c h ' s testimony a r e : "A. W e l l , t h e c a r ( E s l i n g e r c a r ) was headed s o u t h , corning o f f of R a v a l l i H i l l , and when i t g o t c l o s e t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of 2 0 0 a t t h e f o o t of t h e h i l l , i t seemed t o s t a r t f i s h t a i l i n g o u t of c o n t r o l and s t a r t e d two c l o c k w i s e s p i n s s t i l l heading s o u t h . "Q. How f a s t was t h e b l u e c a r ( E s l i n g e r c a r ) t r a v e l i n g a s i t approached t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n heading toward Thompson F a l l s ? "A. I would g u e s s between t h i r t y f i v e m i l e s a n hour. - thirty- "Q. You i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t s t a r t e d t o f i s h t a i l ; is that right? "A. Yes. "Q. Can you t e l l t h e j u r y i n your own words what your c o n c e p t i o n of a f i s h t a i l i n g maneuver is? "A. The back end t r y i n g t o p a s s t h e f r o n t end. What d i d you do when you saw i t a t t e m p t i n g to fishtail? "Q. "A. Well, I watched i t go i n t o a c o u p l e of c l o c k w i s e s p i n s , and t h e n I immediately looked s o u t h , b e c a u s e m w i f e was supposed t o m e e t m e . y "Q. Why i s i t t h a t you looked s o u t h ? "A. She d r i v e s a C h e v r o l e t C h e v e t t e , and I was concerned s h e may be t h e n e x t c a r i n l i n e . "Q. Based upon your twenty-two y e a r s of d r i v i n g e x p e r i e n c e , was t h e b l u e c a r i n c o n t r o l a s i t proceeded from t h e Thompson F a l l s i n t e r section southerly? "A. No. "Q. A s you looked s o u t h e r l y towards t h e d i r e c t i o n t o which you t h o u g h t your w i f e was a p p r o a c h i n g , d i d you have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o see a n y o t h e r v e h i c l e ? "A. Y e s , north . t h e r e was a t r u c k a p p r o a c h i n g headed "Q. Could you t e l l , based upon your o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h a t t r u c k a t t h a t p l a c e and t i m e , how f a s t i t was t r a v e l i n g ? "A. I would g u e s s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y f i v e m i l e s a n hour. - thirty- "Q. A t t h e t i m e you saw t h e t r u c k , which l a n e of t r a f f i c w a s i t i n , t h e r i g h t l a n e . Excuse me, s t r i k e t h a t . "Was i t i n t h e northbound l a n e o r t h e s o u t h bound l a n e ? "A. I t was i n t h e northbound l a n e . "Q. Had you d r i v e n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r roadway before? "A. Many t i m e s . "Q. Were you f a m i l i a r w i t h where t h e snow berms were on t h e s i d e and where t h e c e n t e r l i n e was u n d e r n e a t h t h e snowpack? "A. Yes. "Q. A s t h e t r u c k proceeded f u r t h e r n o r t h e r l y , d i d i t s t a y i n t h e northbound l a n e ? "A. Yes, i t d i d . "Q. M r . F i t c h , I ' l l a s k some more s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s l a t e r , b u t w i l l you t e l l t h i s j u r y i n your own words e x a c t l y what you saw a s t h e t r u c k and t h e c a r approached e a c h o t h e r . "A. J u s t a l i t t l e b i t s o u t h o f what u s e d t o b e t h e Texaco s t a t i o n t h e r e t h e t r u c k w a s i n t h e northbound l a n e , and t h e c a r seemed t o be s t a r t i n g i n t o a n o t h e r s p i n and was s i t t i n g crossways i n t h e northbound l a n e , a t which time t h e truck contacted it a t about t h e p a s s e n g e r o r t h e d r i v e r ' s d o o r , which would be t h e l e f t s i d e , w i t h t h e l e f t f r o n t c o r n e r of t h e v e h i c l e , t r u c k , and proceeded t o shove i t back up t h e highway, I would g u e s s a hundred - hundred and f i f t y f e e t . F i r s t c o n t a c t t h e t r u c k immediately -- t h e t r a c t o r j a c k k n i f e d , made c o n t a c t a b o u t a hundred f e e t - a hundred f i f t y f e e t up t h e r o a d , a t which time i t h i t t h e r i g h t s i d e of t h e t r u c k , s t i l l h i t t i n g t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e of t h e c a r , shoving i t o f f t o t h e w e s t of t h e highway, and t h e t r a i l e r t h e n c o n t i n u e d t o s p i n around and s l i d e o f f t o t h e w e s t s i d e of t h e highway. "Q. M r . F i t c h , when t h e f i r s t c o n t a c t was made between t h e c a r and t h e t r u c k , was t h e t r u c k i n t h e northbound l a n e o r i n t h e s o u t h bound l a n e ? "A. W a s i n t h e northbound l a n e . When t h e c a r f i r s t made c o n t a c t w i t h t h e "Q. t r u c k , was i t i n t h e northbound l a n e o r i n t h e southbound l a n e ? "A. Mostly i n t h e northbound l a n e . "Q. Was t h e c a r a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n t i m e w i t h i t s nose headed s o u t h , o r was i t sideways? "A. A l i t t l e sideways, s t i l l p r i m a r i l y headed south. "Q. Did you, from where you w e r e s e a t e d , h e a r t h e s e v a r i o u s i m p a c t s t h a t took p l a c e ? "A. Yes, I d i d . "Q. Did you h e a r t h e f i r s t i m p a c t when you s a w it take place? "A. Yes. "Q. Approximately how many s e c o n d s e l a p s e d b e f o r e t h e second impact took p l a c e ? "A. F i v e , t h r e e , f o u r , f i v e s e c o n d s , v e r y s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e . "Q. Approximately f i v e seconds? "A. Approximately. "Q. Can you d e s c r i b e t o t h e j u r y what happened t o t h e c a r a t t h e time of t h e f i r s t i m p a c t ? "A. Y e s , i t was shoved back up t h e highway, t h a t would be n o r t h , which i t went a l i t t l e b i t t o t h e southbound l a n e , and on t h e second i m p a c t t h e n i t took p l a c e i n t h e southbound lane. " V i r g i n i a B u t l e r , who had l i v e d i n t h e R a v a l l i a r e a f o r 3 7 y e a r s and been d r i v i n g a c a r f o r 20 y e a r s , a l s o t e s t i f i e d . She a l s o was s e a t e d n e x t t o a window i n t h e Bison C a f e , d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e t h e p o i n t of c o l l i s i o n . She t e s t i f i e d a t l e n g t h a s t o h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s of b o t h v e h i c l e s . She confirmed t h a t t h e E s l i n g e r c a r was g o i n g v i r t u a l l y sideways on t h e highway. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c a r was t r a v e l i n g f a s t e r than the truck. She f u r t h e r confirmed t h a t t h e t r u c k was i n i t s c o r r e c t l a n e , t h a t b e i n g t h e northbound l a n e , and t h a t j u s t p r i o r t o t h e i m p a c t , t h e c a r was i n t h e wrong l a n e , t h a t b e i n g t h e northbound l a n e a s w e l l . She a l s o confirmed t h a t s h e h e a r d two l o u d n o i s e s , w i t h t h e second n o i s e b e i n g s e v e r a l seconds a f t e r t h e f i r s t . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t r u c k ended up swerving around a f t e r t h e c o l l i s i o n and i t s e l f heading s o u t h . Howard S k i l e s , d r i v e r of t h e t r u c k t e s t i f i e d a s mentioned i n the majority opinion. H e t e s t i f i e d t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of b r a k e s on t h e t r u c k and t r a i l e r , which r e s u l t e d i n a s l i d i n g o r l o c k i n g , a f t e r which he r e l e a s e d such b r a k e s . I t was t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n of b r a k e s which t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s was t h e a c t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e t r u c k d r i v e r which was j u s t i f i e d b e c a u s e of t h e sudden emergency. In pertinent p a r t Skiles testified: "A. I s t a r t e d t o p u l l t o t h e r i g h t and I h i t m b r a k e s and I s e e n t h a t wasn' t t h e y r i g h t t h i n g t o do s o I g o t r i g h t back o f f them and t h e v e h i c l e s t a r t e d t o l o c k up. "Q. What happened when you h i t your b r a k e s ? "A. I t s t a r t e d t o l o c k up. "Q. And what o c c u r r e d when i t s t a r t e d t o l o c k up? "A. I t s t a r t e d t o s l i d e and I immediately let off. "Q. What d i r e c t i o n d i d i t s t a r t t o s l i d e ? "A. J u s t down t h e s t r e e t . "Q. Was i t g o i n g s t r a i g h t ? "A. F a i r l y s t r a i g h t , yes. "Q. I n what p o s i t i o n was t h e t r a i l e r a t t h i s point? "A. I t was behind m e . "Q. Did t h e t r a i l e r s t a r t t o come forward? "A. N o , I l e t o f f on t h e b r a k e s b e f o r e t h e y I j u s t b a r e l y tapped them. had a chance. "Q. You t a p p e d t h e b r a k e s , you f e l t t h e v e h i c l e l o c k up -- I t h i n k t h a t ' s t h e t e r m you used -- and s l i d e . You went i n t o a s k i d . "A. Started to. "Q. Then what happened? "A. I l e t o f f t h e b r a k e s , looked back and he s t a r t e d t o f i s h t a i l and he t u r n e d a b o u t h a l f sideways and h e was coming r i g h t a t m e . "Q. Where was your v e h i c l e a t t h i s time and t h i s i s j u s t b e f o r e t h e impact? "A. W e l l , t h e r e i s no way f o r m e t o r e a l l y The v e h i c l e i t s e l f , mine w a s -- I t was w e l l o v e r i n m l a n e a t t h e time of impact. y -- "Q. Your v e h i c l e was i n t h e northbound l a n e a t t h e t i m e of t h e impact? "A. Yes. "Q. Did i t e v e r s l i d e o v e r t o t h e southbound lane? "A. T h a t s t r e e t i s plowed r e a l wide r i g h t t h e r e . T h a t must be o v e r s e v e n t y f e e t of s t r e e t r i g h t t h e r e b u t i t was way o v e r on m s i d e . y "Q. Did you e v e r c r o s s t h e c e n t e r l i n e ? "A. NO." O f f i c e r Magone d i d t e s t i f y a s f o l l o w s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p o i n t of impact: "Q. Is t h e r e any q u e s t i o n i n your mind, o f f i c e r , a b o u t where t h e i m p a c t of t h i s a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d ? "A. NO, sir. "Q. And i t o c c u r r e d , a s you s a i d , i n t h e s o u t h bound l a n e , c l o s e t o t h e w e s t e d g e , I t h i n k you s a i d of t h e a s p h a l t ? "A. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o t e l l e x a c t l y where t h e edge o f t h e l a n e w a s , b u t i t w a s on t h e w e s t s i d e , y e s , i n t h e southbound l a n e ; k i n d of h a r d t o t e l l r i g h t where t h e l a n e i s t h e r e due t o t h e snow c o v e r , b u t from t h e c e n t e r l i n e o v e r t o t h i s p o i n t we would p u t i t on t h e edge of t h e lane." Reviewing t h e e v i d e n c e i n the l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , a s r e q u i r e d , we would h o l d t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s L r e q u i r e d under t h e a n n o t a t i o n from 8 0 A R 2d. 1, c i t e d i n t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n have been m e t : 1) The c l a i m e d emergency which a c t u a l l y e x i s t e d was t h e s l i d i n g of t h e E s l i n g e r c a r sideways i n t o t h e t r u c k ' s l a n e of t r a f f i c . The p e r i l o u s s i t u a t i o n was n o t c r e a t e d by t h e 2) truck d r i v e r - t h e t r u c k d r i v e r t e s t i f i e d " I s e e n him coming down t h e h i l l b e f o r e he e v e r g o t t o t h e j u n c t i o n . I didn' t pay t h a t much a t t e n t i o n t o him u n t i l he g o t w i t h i n 1 0 0 y a r d s o f me." The m a j o r i t y h a s s u g g e s t e d t h i s i s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f negligence. T h a t c a n n o t be i m p l i e d where t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t he was d r i v i n g a t 25-35 m i l e s p e r hour. Note t h e r e i s no o t h e r e v i d e n c e showing n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e truck d r i v e r with t h e exception of t h e reference t o t h e p o i n t of c o l l i s i o n by t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e highway p a t r o l m a n . 3) A l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s of a c t i o n i n meeting t h e emergency were open t o t h e t r u c k d r i v e r - c l e a r l y i t made s e n s e f o r him t o t u r n r i g h t and a p p l y t h e b r a k e s a s he d i d . The a c t i o n t a k e n w a s s u c h a s m i g h t have been t a k e n 4) by a p e r s o n of r e a s o n a b l e prudence i n t h e same o r s i m i l a r situations - t h i s seems t o have been a n e n t i r e l y a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r s e of a c t i o n t o be t a k e n by a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n . While t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e b r a k e s d i d c a u s e some l o c k i n g and p o s s i b l y s l i d i n g , t h e immediate r e l e a s e of t h e b r a k e s a l l o w e d t h e t r u c k and t r a i l e r s t o remain i n t h e p r o p e r l a n e . Our c a s e i s d i r e c t l y comparable t o Hood v. Williamson ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 7 Wash. App. 355, 4 9 9 P.2d 68. I n t h e Hood case, t h e r e was a head-on c o l l i s i o n where t h e o c c u p a n t s of t h e v e h i c l e s were b o t h k i l l e d and t h e r e was c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e l a n e i n which t h e c o l l i s i o n o c c u r r e d . With r e g a r d t o t h e emergency i n s t r u c t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e i n s t r u c t i o n here given, the c o u r t s t a t e d : "An emergency i n s t r u c t i o n i s p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d on b e h a l f of t h e d r i v e r o f a c a r on i t s own s i d e of t h e r o a d , when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a c a r on t h e wrong s i d e o f t h e road. [ C i t a t i o n omitted. I There was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y g i v i n g t h e emergency i n s t r u c t i o n on b e h a l f of b o t h p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t . " 4 9 9 P.2d a t 7 2 . I n t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e emergency i n s t r u c t i o n c o u l d be a p p l i c a b l e t o b o t h t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' and d e f e n d a n t ' s s i d e of t h e c a s e . The p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d have a r g u e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e b r a k e s , l o c k i n g of t h e w h e e l s , and s l i d i n g of t h e t r u c k was a n emergency which r e q u i r e d a r e s p o n s e on t h e p a r t of t h e E s l i n g e r s . On t h e o t h e r hand, a s a r g u e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e sideways s l i d i n g of t h e E s l i n g e r v e h i c l e i n t o t h e wrong t r a f f i c l a n e c l e a r l y r e q u i r e d a n emergency r e s p o n s e by t h e t r u c k d r i v e r . W e f i n d t h a t b o t h p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t were r e p r e s e n t e d by v e r y competent c o u n s e l , and p r e s e n t e d a l l of t h e e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e i n b e h a l f of e a c h s i d e . c o n f l i c t s i n t h e evidence. There w e r e s t r i k i n g A f t e r due c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e j u r y found t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n c e of t h e E s l i n g e r s w a s 100% of t h e c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t , and t h a t t h e r e was no n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of t h e t r u c k d r i v e r . of t h e lower c o u r t . W e concur i n t h e above d i s s e n t : Chief J u s t i c e W would a f f i r m t h e judgment e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
