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.
