Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Reno Personal Injury Lawyer
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Reno Personal Injury LawyerNevada Supreme Court Clarifies Sudden Emergency Jury Instruction
By Steve Klearman
In Posas v. Hortan, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 12 (April 15, 2010), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed when it is appropriate for a sudden emergency instruction to be given to a jury.
The case arose from an automobile accident. Nicole Horton rear-ended Amelia Posas when Posas stopped suddenly for a jaywalking pedestrian pushing a stroller. Horton, who was driving about three to four behind Posas, admitted that she was following Horton too close.
Posas filed suit against Horton as a result of the accident. At trial, the jury was given a sudden emergency instruction, despite Posas' objection, and the jury returned a verdict for Horton.
The sudden emergency instruction stated that "A person confronted with a sudden emergency which he does not create, who acts according to his best judgment or, because of insufficient time to form a judgment fails to act in the most judicious manner, is not guilty of negligence if he exercises the care of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances."
The Court concluded that the jury instruction was given inappropriately. First, the Court concluded that Horton wasn't faced with a sudden emergency because she was not suddenly placed in a position of peril through no negligence of her own. Instead, the Court concluded that she placed herself in a position of peril through her own negligence. Further, the Court stated that in order to request the sudden emergency instruction, the requesting party must have been affected by the emergency. The Court noted that if an emergency situation had been created by the pedestrian, it would have been an emergency that confronted Posas, not Horton.
The Court clarified that the sudden emergency instruction is only appropriate when (1) unexpected conditions confront the actor requesting the instruction and (2) the actor was otherwise exercising reasonable care.
Full post as published by Reno Personal Injury Lawyer on April 16, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Bailout Bill HR124
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Toyota Faces Sudden Unintended Acceleration Class Action
Toyota Faces Sudden Unintended Acceleration Class Action
Virgin Atlantic Flight
Makes Emergency Landing
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Trailers Contain Toxic Formaldehyde Fumes
ADHD Stimulant Medications
Linked to Sudden Unexplained Death in Children
Chinese Drywall Lawsuit Filed Against Nevada Home Builders
Chinese Drywall Lawsuit Filed Against Nevada Home Builders
Nevada Onion
Workers Injured, EPA Files Complaint

Knife as deadly weapon: inconsistent rulings
BLAWGS: "Supreme Court Clarifies Purchaser and Other Issues in Consumer Protection Act."
Ford Motor Preserves Risk-Utility Jury Instruction Argument For Appeal
You don't have to acquit to consider a lesser [NOT FINAL]
Flawed jury instruction leads Oregon Supreme Court to affirm punitive damages








