Driving Into the Sunset

Driving into the sun can be deadly. The glare on the windshield from the sun can make it impossible to see other cars or people in the road. So if the sun blinds the driver and the driver hits another car or a person, who is at fault? Who is Responsible? Two attorneys, Kevin Faley and Andrea Alonso have written an article in the New York Law Journal about sun glare and accidents.  

The Emergency Doctrine

The Emergency Doctrine states that if an individual were to face a sudden, unforeseeable change that demands immediate action, the situation may qualify as an emergency in court. In an emergency, little or no time for thought or consideration is available to the individual prior to their actions. Emergency situations force action within a limited amount of time and therefore, the outcome of one’s actions may result in negative consequences. If the court is able to determine that the actions of the individual involved were prudent and sensible, the person in question will not be considered neglectful or careless in their decision.

In order for a situation to be considered an emergency, the circumstances and events involved must be out of the actor’s control. The actor can not be aware of the events prior to their occurrence. If the actions of someone faced with an emergency situation result in negative consequences, the court will not recognize them for negligence as long as their actions are seen as valid to the situation. When such a person is determined as not negligent, they are considered to be less liable for their actions.

In court, one must provide sufficient evidence that an emergency has taken place if their actions are to be considered appropriate, as long as the actions were applicable to the emergency in question. The Emergency Doctrine has been applied to numerous situations when a defendant feels as though they have been forced into immediate action. 

Sun Glare and the Emergency Doctrine

In terms of automobile accidents, several cases exist for which a defendant has declared their situation as an emergency based on the sudden appearance of sun glare while driving. Sun glare is not often considered an emergency as it is based on surrounding weather conditions. One can foresee the possibility of sun glare by considering their environment before operating a vehicle. When accounting for such conditions, one has time to prepare for such things as intense sunlight or snowy weather. Any action made behind the wheel after this point will most likely not be seen as an emergency by the court if an accident is attributed to sun glare.

Other circumstances such as the sudden changing of lanes by another vehicle without signaling or the sudden stop of a bus due to the presence of a bomb on board are considered emergency situations. In these cases, the defendant would have very little time to think before making a decision and their actions may result in negative consequences, however under the Emergency Doctrine, they would not be considered careless or negligent. The most common result of sun glare cases involve rear-end accidents of motor vehicles.

The Emergency Doctrine can apply to sun glare-based situations that occur outside of vehicles, however, because weather conditions can be considered by an individual within a timely manner, it is rare that such cases are considered emergencies under the basis of weather conditions.

Cases Involving Sun Glare and Motor Vehicle Accidents

Matter of Edward M. Russell v. Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York:

This case involved a fatal pedestrian knockdown. Russell’s vehicle hit the pedestrian with enough force to cause their death. In court Russell claimed that the situation was an emergency due to sun glare. Because Russell did not automatically reduce his speed when entering an area of intense sunlight and because he was able to see the area before entering it, the situation was not considered an emergency by the court. When his vision became impaired by the sunlight, Russell attempted to stop the car before hitting the pedestrian, but was unable to do so in time. This did not change the court’s decision that the situation did not qualify as an emergency caused by sun glare.

Juoniene v. HRH Construction

This accident involved a sun glare emergency in which automobiles were not a factor. The plaintiff struck her head on a pipe that was plainly visible; however her vision was impaired by sun glare. The court ruled that in this circumstance, there would have been no way for her to see the pipe before hitting it.

Lifson v. City of Syracuse

The defendant, Derek Klink stuck and killed a pedestrian in an area which was known to have high foot traffic. Before making a turn, Klink stopped at a stop sign and looked to both his left and right. When he looked left, the direction he planned to turn, he became blinded by the sun and looked down. Upon looking up, Klink noticed the pedestrian and applied the brake, but not soon enough to bring the car to a stop before the collision was made.

During his trial, the Jerry was asked to consider whether Klink was involved in an emergency situation. Because the appearance of the sunlight was sudden and Klink had little time to react, the Emergency Doctrine was applicable.

This decision was reversed in a court of appeals because Klink knew the area in which he was driving. He was also turning west in the direction of the sunset and could have foreseen the event of sun glare. By this logic, the sun glare could not be seen as sudden and unpredictable. The court concluded that some situations, the Emergency Doctrine could apply to sun glare situations, but not in this one.