Denial of Summary Judgment Affirmed as the Emergency Doctrine Did Not Bar Plaintiff’s Recovery and the Severity of Plaintiff’s Injury Was an Issue of Fact.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending the emergency doctrine applied and that its actions were reasonable, or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury causally related to the accident. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment as the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a driver’s response thereto generally constitute issues of fact. 

Regarding the issue of the plaintiff’s injury, although the defendant met the initial burden of producing evidence that the plaintiff’s injury was not related to the accident, the plaintiff’s physicians concluded the opposite. Therefore, there was an issue of fact for the jury. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}