In Connell v. Richwood Gardens, Inc., the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reaffirmed limitations on the sudden emergency doctrine.

Sudden Emergency Doctrine

Under the sudden emergency doctrine, a person who finds himself in a position of imminent peril and without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be the better method, unless the emergency is brought about by his own negligence.

The sudden emergency doctrine is only applicable to the standard of conduct after an emergency has arisen. It does not apply to lower the standard of care required of motorists before the emergency occurs.¹

In a rear end collision, the following vehicle that collides with a preceding automobile is presumed to be at fault and must prove a lack of fault to avoid liability. However, if other vehicles can stop behind the lead vehicle, the last one that precipitates the chain reaction is negligent.

The rule of sudden emergency cannot be invoked by one who has not used due care to avoid an emergency, and the law charges the driver with seeing what he should have seen.

Connell v. Richwood Gardens, Inc. – Background

On September 30, 2020, a three-vehicle accident occurred on U.S. Hwy 165, near Monroe, Louisiana. A local cemetery’s employee was operating a backhoe on U.S. 165 traveling at 20-mph (the speed limit was 65-mph). Traveling behind the backhoe in a Ford pickup truck was the employee’s manager. At the time of the accident the Ford pickup had its hazard lights on. At some point, Plaintiffs’ vehicle came up behind the Ford pickup and slowed down, put its hazard lights on, and then was subsequently rear-ended by the defendant-driver. The force from the impact pushed Plaintiffs’ vehicle into the Ford pickup ahead of it.

Plaintiffs alleged they were injured in the accident and filed suit against the rear-ending driver as well as the local cemetery, alleging the slow-moving backhoe and Ford pickup created a chain reaction that created a sudden emergency and caused the accident.

At trial the jury put 100% fault on the rear-ending driver and no fault on the backhoe or Ford pickup. Plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial alleging the jury was legally and factually incorrect for not putting any fault on the backhoe, Ford pickup, or the local cemetery. The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a new trial from which Plaintiffs appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal.

The Louisiana Second Circuit ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment.² The Louisiana Second Circuit noted that the facts of the case showed that:

1. the backhoe was traveling at a low rate of speed,
2. Plaintiffs slowed their vehicle and activated their hazard lights to avoid a collision, and
3. the defendant-driver was traveling at a high rate of speed, swerving in and out of his lane when he rear-ended Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

The Louisiana Second Circuit noted the sudden emergency doctrine is only applicable after an emergency has arisen and cannot be used to lower the standard of care required for motorists prior thereto. The Louisiana Second Circuit could not say the jury’s finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous in finding the defendant-driver 100% at fault, nor did the trial court err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.

_______________

1. Barfield v. Akins, 54204 (La. App. 2 Cir 07/20/22)
2. Connell v. Richwood Gardens, Inc. 56,668-CA (La. App. 2 Cir 12/17/25)