6 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2005 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Roth v. Hoxsie's Arco Service, Inc.green2 sentences1999This Court has previously held that the sudden emergency doctrine recognizes that “individuals confronted with sudden and unexpected events demanding immediate action cannot be held to the same standard of care required of one in no such predicament.” Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 399 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979). 1999This Court has previously held that the sudden emergency doctrine recognizes that “individuals confronted with sudden and unexpected events demanding immediate action cannot be held to the same standard of care required of one in no such predicament.” Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 399 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979). | 2 | 5 |
Malinowski v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green2 sentences2005Moreover, just as the defendant in Malinowski engaged in certain preparatory behaviors that negated the spontaneity of the situation, Baker engaged in the preparatory behavior of downshifting and steering his truck towards the median.” In Malinowski , a tractor-trailer driver, while traveling at a speed of fifteen miles per hour, observed a group of boys “ ‘horsing around’ at a distance of approximately 300 feet.” Malinowski v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 727 A.2d 194, 195 (R.I.1999) (Malinowski I). 2005We concluded that it was error to charge the jury with the sudden emergency instruction because the tractor-trailer driver was “confronted with a situation that lacked the spontaneity required to be termed a ‘sudden emergency.’ ” Id. at 197 . | 2 | 3 |
Pazienza v. Readergreen2 sentences2004The sudden emergency doctrine acknowledges that "individuals confronted with sudden and unexpected events demanding immediate action cannot be held to the same standard of care required of one in no such predicament." Pazienza v. Reader, 717 A.2d 644 , 645 (R.I. 1998). 2004It is appropriate for a trial justice to administer the sudden emergency instruction when "a driver of an automobile is confronted with an unforeseeable emergency condition not caused by his own negligence." Pazienza, 717 A.2d at 645 . | 1 | 2 |
Parella v. Montalbanogreen2 sentences2005Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282, 289 (R.I.1999) (quoting Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 899 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979)). 2005Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282, 289 (R.I.1999) (quoting Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 899 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Skaling v. Aetna Insurancegreen2 sentences2005Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282, 289 (R.I.1999) (quoting Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 899 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979)). 2005Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282, 289 (R.I.1999) (quoting Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 899 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Oddo v. Cardigreen2 sentences1998When, as here, a driver of an automobile is confronted with an unforeseeable emergency condition not caused by his own negligence, a sudden emergency instruction to the jury like the one given in this case is appropriate. 1 See, e.g., Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 399 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979); Oddo v. Cardi, 100 R.I. 578, 581-82 , 218 A.2d 373, 375-76 (1966); see also Lamarque v. Masse, 76 R.I. 382, 387-88 , 71 A.2d 100, 102-03 (1950). 1998When, as here, a driver of an automobile is confronted with an unforeseeable emergency condition not caused by his own negligence, a sudden emergency instruction to the jury like the one given in this case is appropriate. 1 See, e.g., Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 399 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979); Oddo v. Cardi, 100 R.I. 578, 581-82 , 218 A.2d 373, 375-76 (1966); see also Lamarque v. Masse, 76 R.I. 382, 387-88 , 71 A.2d 100, 102-03 (1950). | 1 | 1 |
Lamarque v. Massegreen2 sentences1998When, as here, a driver of an automobile is confronted with an unforeseeable emergency condition not caused by his own negligence, a sudden emergency instruction to the jury like the one given in this case is appropriate. 1 See, e.g., Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 399 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979); Oddo v. Cardi, 100 R.I. 578, 581-82 , 218 A.2d 373, 375-76 (1966); see also Lamarque v. Masse, 76 R.I. 382, 387-88 , 71 A.2d 100, 102-03 (1950). 1998When, as here, a driver of an automobile is confronted with an unforeseeable emergency condition not caused by his own negligence, a sudden emergency instruction to the jury like the one given in this case is appropriate. 1 See, e.g., Roth v. Hoxsie’s Arco Service, Inc., 121 R.I. 428, 432 , 399 A.2d 1226, 1228 (1979); Oddo v. Cardi, 100 R.I. 578, 581-82 , 218 A.2d 373, 375-76 (1966); see also Lamarque v. Masse, 76 R.I. 382, 387-88 , 71 A.2d 100, 102-03 (1950). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Markham v. Cross Transportation, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 226 , 376 A.2d at 1366 . “[WJhere [a tractor-trailer driver] saw and struck stopped vehicles that were visible on the highway,” we concluded that charging the jury with the statutory standard of care, instead of the sudden emergency instruction, was appropriate considering the trial court’s finding that the situation lacked spontaneity. 2005Id. at 226 , 376 A.2d at 1366 . “[WJhere [a tractor-trailer driver] saw and struck stopped vehicles that were visible on the highway,” we concluded that charging the jury with the statutory standard of care, instead of the sudden emergency instruction, was appropriate considering the trial court’s finding that the situation lacked spontaneity. | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Maklar v. Greene
green
2 sentences2004Therefore, "[t]he doctrine does not apply if a defendant may be reasonably charged with foreseeing the occurrence of an emergency condition." Maklar v. Greene, 106 R.I. 405 , 408, 261 A.2d 15 , 17 (1970). 2004Therefore, "[t]he doctrine does not apply if a defendant may be reasonably charged with foreseeing the occurrence of an emergency condition." Maklar v. Greene, 106 R.I. 405 , 408, 261 A.2d 15 , 17 (1970). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mercurio v. Fascitelli
green
2 sentences2004Additionally, the sudden emergency doctrine "is unavailable when the emergency is created by the actor's own negligence, for to permit benefit from the emergency to be claimed by one responsible for its creation would provide him with a shield fabricated out of his own fault." Mercurio v. Fascitelli, 116 R.I. 237 , 241, 354 A.2d 736 , 739 (1976). 2004Additionally, the sudden emergency doctrine "is unavailable when the emergency is created by the actor's own negligence, for to permit benefit from the emergency to be claimed by one responsible for its creation would provide him with a shield fabricated out of his own fault." Mercurio v. Fascitelli, 116 R.I. 237 , 241, 354 A.2d 736 , 739 (1976). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kolc v. Maratta
green
2 sentences1999Previously, in Kolc v. Maratta, 108 R.I. 623 , 278 A.2d 410 (1971), we had occasion to review a similar instruction wherein a child darted from a sidewalk adjacent to Mineral Spring Avenue and collided with a vehicle driven by the defendant-operator. 1999Previously, in Kolc v. Maratta, 108 R.I. 623 , 278 A.2d 410 (1971), we had occasion to review a similar instruction wherein a child darted from a sidewalk adjacent to Mineral Spring Avenue and collided with a vehicle driven by the defendant-operator. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.