sudden emergency doctrine in South Carolina

2019See Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 392 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 540 (2000) ("The sudden emergency doctrine is intended to protect a driver who, while acting with due care, suddenly finds herself in an emergency situation due to the negligent or wrongful acts of another.

2019See Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 392 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 540 (2000) ("The sudden emergency doctrine is intended to protect a driver who, while acting with due care, suddenly finds herself in an emergency situation due to the negligent or wrongful acts of another.

2006Our supreme court discussed the sudden emergency doctrine in Elrod v. All, 243 S.C. 425 , 134 S.E.2d 410 (1964): In determining whether or not the operator of an automobile was justified in turning out to the left, the usual rules applicable to acts in emergencies generally apply.

2006Our supreme court discussed the sudden emergency doctrine in Elrod v. All, 243 S.C. 425 , 134 S.E.2d 410 (1964): In determining whether or not the operator of an automobile was justified in turning out to the left, the usual rules applicable to acts in emergencies generally apply.

2013Co., 221 S.C. 212, 234-35 , 70 S.E.2d 211, 222 (1952).

2013Co., 221 S.C. 212, 234-35 , 70 S.E.2d 211, 222 (1952).

2006Ross, 27 S.W.3d at 527-28 ; see also Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn.1994) (stating the sudden emergency doctrine has been implicitly subsumed and should impact the jury’s apportionment of fault between the parties in an appropriate case).

2006It is likewise true when the analysis is only of the defendant's fault because, as in the case at bar, there has been no allegation that the plaintiff was at fault. *264 Ross, 27 S.W.3d at 527-28 ; see also Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn.1994) (stating the sudden emergency doctrine has been implicitly subsumed and should impact the jury's apportionment of fault between the parties in an appropriate case).

2006The Supreme Court of Kentucky, in Regenstreif v. Phelps, 142 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2004), analyzed whether the sudden emergency doctrine had been subsumed by comparative negligence: The sudden emergency qualification was not subsumed by the comparative negligence doctrine.

2006The Supreme Court of Kentucky, in Regenstreif v. Phelps, 142 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2004), analyzed whether the sudden emergency doctrine had been subsumed by comparative negligence: The sudden emergency qualification was not subsumed by the comparative negligence doctrine.

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)

2006Again, in McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn.1995), the sudden emergency doctrine was addressed and was, this time, actually at issue in a case involving an automobile accident.

2006Again, in McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn.1995), the sudden emergency doctrine was *263 addressed and was, this time, actually at issue in a case involving an automobile accident.

2006Dep't, 328 S.C. 24, 33 , 491 S.E.2d 571, 575 (1997); cf. Lydia v. Horton, 355 S.C. 36, 40 , 583 S.E.2d 750, 752-53 (2003) (noting if the evidence supports only one conclusion, the comparative fault of the plaintiff and the defendant becomes a question of law for the trial judge; the court held, in a negligent entrustment action, the plaintiff's admission that he was intoxicated and lost control of a borrowed vehicle exceeded the owner's alleged negligence in loaning him the vehicle as a matter of law). [4] The sudden emergency doctrine does not bar a plaintiff's claim as a matter of law, but i

2006Dep't, 328 S.C. 24, 33 , 491 S.E.2d 571, 575 (1997); cf. Lydia v. Horton, 355 S.C. 36, 40 , 583 S.E.2d 750, 752-53 (2003) (noting if the evidence supports only one conclusion, the comparative fault of the plaintiff and the defendant becomes a question of law for the trial judge; the court held, in a negligent entrustment action, the plaintiff's admission that he was intoxicated and lost control of a borrowed vehicle exceeded the owner's alleged negligence in loaning him the vehicle as a matter of law). [4] The sudden emergency doctrine does not bar a plaintiff's claim as a matter of law, but i

2006Dep't, 328 S.C. 24, 33 , 491 S.E.2d 571, 575 (1997); cf. Lydia v. Horton, 355 S.C. 36, 40 , 583 S.E.2d 750, 752-53 (2003) (noting if the evidence supports only one conclusion, the comparative fault of the plaintiff and the defendant becomes a question of law for the trial judge; the court held, in a negligent entrustment action, the plaintiff's admission that he was intoxicated and lost control of a borrowed vehicle exceeded the owner's alleged negligence in loaning him the vehicle as a matter of law). [4] The sudden emergency doctrine does not bar a plaintiff's claim as a matter of law, but i

2006Dep't, 328 S.C. 24, 33 , 491 S.E.2d 571, 575 (1997); cf. Lydia v. Horton, 355 S.C. 36, 40 , 583 S.E.2d 750, 752-53 (2003) (noting if the evidence supports only one conclusion, the comparative fault of the plaintiff and the defendant becomes a question of law for the trial judge; the court held, in a negligent entrustment action, the plaintiff's admission that he was intoxicated and lost control of a borrowed vehicle exceeded the owner's alleged negligence in loaning him the vehicle as a matter of law). [4] The sudden emergency doctrine does not bar a plaintiff's claim as a matter of law, but i

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)

2006See Wiggins v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 360, 365 , 215 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (stating the doctrine of sudden emergency is a part of the overall law of negligence); Watson v. Aiken, 243 S.C. 368, 373 , 133 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1963) (observing when a person faces a sudden emergency, he is not to be judged in light of later events, but rather, is to be judged in light of all the surrounding circumstances, by the standard of what a person of ordinary prudence likely would have done under the same conditions); Singletary v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157 , 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1994)