Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on sudden emergency and whether it improperly excluded testimony concerning an expert witness's fee. The court held that competent evidence supported the sudden-emergency instruction, the evidentiary ruling was not reversible error, reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the sudden-emergency doctrine when competent evidence supported the possibility that the emergency was not caused by the defendant's negligence.
- Whether exclusion of the plaintiff's question concerning the expert witness's fee constituted reversible error.
Holdings
- The trial court properly instructed the jury on sudden emergency because competent evidence tended to show that the emergency may not have been caused by the defendant's negligence or want of care.
- Sustaining the objection to the question about the expert witness's fee was not reversible error.
Key quotations
“An instruction on sudden emergency is proper if there is any competent evidence tending to establish that the sudden emergency was not brought about by negligence or want of care of the party asserting it as a defense.” (448)
“The Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division No. 1, is granted and that court’s opinion is reversed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.” (449)
Factual background
The parties were involved in a collision at an intersection where the defendant had stopped at a stop sign before entering a favored highway. The defendant testified that she saw the plaintiff's vehicle approximately one and one-half to two blocks away, entered the highway, and then saw the vehicle immediately before the collision. The plaintiff testified that he was traveling within the speed limit, while the defendant's expert testified that the plaintiff had been exceeding the speed limit.
Procedural history
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and denied recovery to both parties, including on the defendant's cross-petition. The trial court entered judgment accordingly and overruled the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals issued an opinion that was reviewed on certiorari; the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment.