ParrRichey Frandsen Patterson Kruse | Injury Attorneys
Call For A Free Consultation | 317-505-1342
Review Us
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
    • Our Firm History
    • Why Choose Us?
    • Articles
    • Blog
    • Newsletters
    • Verdicts And Settlements
  • Personal Injury
    • Car Accidents
    • Truck Accidents
    • Catastrophic Injuries
    • Dog Bites
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Premises Liability
    • Product Liability
    • Wrongful Death
    • More Practice Areas
  • FAQs
  • Referrals
  • Communities Served
    • Indianapolis, Indiana
    • Bloomington, Indiana
    • Columbus, Indiana
    • Fort Wayne, Indiana
    • Gary, Indiana
    • More Communities Served
  • Videos
  • Contact
ParrRichey Frandsen Patterson Kruse | Injury Attorneys
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
    • Our Firm History
    • Why Choose Us?
    • Articles
    • Blog
    • Newsletters
    • Verdicts And Settlements
  • Personal Injury
    • Car Accidents
    • Truck Accidents
    • Catastrophic Injuries
    • Dog Bites
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Premises Liability
    • Product Liability
    • Wrongful Death
    • More Practice Areas
  • FAQs
  • Referrals
  • Communities Served
    • Indianapolis, Indiana
    • Bloomington, Indiana
    • Columbus, Indiana
    • Fort Wayne, Indiana
    • Gary, Indiana
    • More Communities Served
  • Videos
  • Contact
Email

CALL

Photo of John M. McLaughlin, Tony W. Patterson and Paul S. Kruse

Helping You Put Your Life Back On Track After A Serious Injury

  1. Home
  2.  ► 
  3. Aggressive Driving
  4.  ► 
  5. How Some Defendants May Attempt to Use the “Sudden Emergency Doctrine” to Evade Liability

How Some Defendants May Attempt to Use the “Sudden Emergency Doctrine” to Evade Liability

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Jul 26, 2018 | Aggressive Driving, Car Accidents, Truck Accidents |

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing what the court called the “sudden emergency doctrine,” explaining how it may be applied to excuse what may otherwise be considered negligent behavior. The case is important to Indiana car accident victims because the doctrine is also applied by Indiana courts.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving in a line of cars, all of which were entering the highway. As one of the cars was proceeding up the on-ramp, another motorist pulled around the side of her vehicle, passed her at a high speed, and made an obscene gesture in her direction. The passing motorist then slammed on her brakes, causing the motorist to also suddenly brake.

The plaintiff was traveling immediately behind the motorist who had just been passed. When that motorist applied the brakes, so did the plaintiff. The plaintiff stopped in time to avoid a collision. However, the defendant truck driver was immediately behind the plaintiff and, as the cars in front of him quickly slowed down, the defendant also applied the brakes.

 

The defendant, however, was unable to stop in time and crashed into the back of the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff later filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that he was negligent in failing to stop in time to avoid the collision. The defendant argued he did not act negligently and filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Court’s Discussion

The court’s ultimate task in this case was to determine if the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to present the case to a jury. The court held that she did not, based on the “sudden emergency doctrine.”

The court held, as a matter of law, that the defendant’s conduct in responding to a sudden emergency that he did not cause was reasonable, given the circumstances. The court explained that drivers cannot be expected to foresee that a driver will dangerously pass another motorist on the on-ramp to the highway and then slam on their brakes. Thus, the court excused the defendant’s conduct.

The Sudden Emergency Doctrine in Indiana

As in the case above, Indiana court have applied the sudden emergency doctrine in limited situations. Indiana courts consider the doctrine more of a specific application of the general requirement that “one’s conduct conform to the standard of a reasonable person.”

Thus, in order to benefit from the doctrine, a defendant must establish that 1.) they did not cause or contribute to the accident, 2.) the danger confronting the defendant was so immediate that it left no time to consider the options, and 3.) the defendant’s apprehension of the danger was reasonable. If a defendant is unable to establish proof of each of these elements, they will be unable to avail themselves to the defense.

Have You Been Injured in an Indiana Car Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in an Indiana car accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. The dedicated Indiana personal injury lawyers at the law firm of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse have extensive experience assisting the victims of Indiana car accidents seek and obtain the compensation they deserve. To learn more, call 888-532-7766 to schedule a free consultation.

Recent Posts

  • Navigating new Indiana electronic evidence rules in trucking litigation
  • 5 dangerous roadside hazards in Indiana and how to avoid them
  • Proving liability in commercial trucking: The black box advantage
  • Indiana appeals court affirms bad-faith claim against Erie Insurance
  • Should you seek medical care after a minor car crash in Indiana?

Categories

Archives

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

Contact Us Today

ParrRichey Frandsen Patterson Kruse | Injury Attorneys

Phone
317-505-1342

  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow

Indianapolis Law Office

251 North Illinois Street
Suite 1800
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Lebanon Law Office

225 West Main Street
PO Box 668
Lebanon, IN 46052

Chicago Law Office

One East Wacker Drive
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Review The Firm

© 2026 Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP • All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw