Bjorndal v. Weitman

Facts

Plaintiff was driving down the highway looking for her father, whose car had broken down along the highway. When she spotted her father waving his arms on the side of the road, she rapidly decelerated and started to make a left hand turn into a snowpark on the left side of the road. Defendant, upon seeing the father waving his arms, assumed that there may be an emergency situation and glanced left to scan the horizon for a potential problem. When he returned his eyes to the road, he saw that Plaintiff had slowed rapidly. To avoid a collision, Defendant planned to pass Plaintiff on her left hand side, but because she was starting to make a left hand turn, he collided with her. She sued for negligence. At trial, the court gave a jury instruction on negligence that pertains to “emergency” situations, which provides, “People who are suddenly placed in a position of peril through no fault of their own and who are compelled to act without opportunity for reflection, are not negligent if they make a choice as a reasonably careful person placed in such a position might make, even though they do not make the wisest choice.” The jury found defendant not negligent, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the jury instruction was an inaccurate statement of negligence law. The Supreme Court reversed.