Georgia Appeals Court Reverses Personal Injury Verdict Over Faulty Sudden Emergency Jury Instruction

ATLANTA (LN) — The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a personal injury verdict and remanded for a new trial Tuesday, finding the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine without evidence the defendant had alternative courses of action available when he struck a disabled vehicle on Interstate 75.

Sandra Pepper, a passenger in a Ford Taurus, was injured when the vehicle she occupied was struck by another car, spun into the median wall, and came to rest facing southbound lane of Interstate 75 in Morrow. Grant Thelen, driving a Ford F-150 behind a semi-truck, struck the disabled Taurus approximately five seconds after it came to rest.

Evidence showed Thelen was traveling between 83.3 and 85 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone. Data from Thelen's vehicle showed he removed his foot from the accelerator 1.1 seconds before impact and pressed the brake. One-tenth of a second before impact, he made a 15-degree rightward steering input that resulted in a one-degree change in tire direction. Thelen testified he did not realize he made the steering input, and an accident reconstructionist testified the change "didn't really take effect" before impact.

The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in giving the sudden emergency instruction because the evidence did not authorize it. The doctrine requires that a defendant have a choice of conduct when confronted with sudden peril.

"Here, because there was no evidence that Thelen had alternative courses of action from which to choose and that his alleged negligence arose out of the choice he made, it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the defense of sudden emergency," Judge Padgett wrote for the panel.

The court also found the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on negligence per se based on Thelen's violation of the speed limit statute, OCGA § 40-6-181, and on a driver's duty to maintain a proper lookout for potential hazards. The trial court instructed on two other statutes Pepper alleged Thelen violated but omitted the speed limit statute from the negligence per se charge.

Pepper's attorney did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Presiding Judge McFadden and Judge Watkins concurred.