FOR BREAKING NEWS VISIT WWW.QNS.COM AUGUST 3, 2017 • THE QUEENS COURIER 73
Q: It was summer, and we were all 19. Jill was driving, with one passenger
in the front and three in the rear, including Jack and me. We had spent
the day at the beach, and were traveling home on the Thruway.
During the first 15-20 minutes, Jack spit chewing tobacco out the
window, opened an umbrella inside the car, and leaned out of the window to
use the umbrella to clean the car. He even stuck his feet over the center console
into Jill's face. Well, it was his birthday.
Then Jack pulled at the strings supporting Jill's top. To cover herself,
she took her hands off the steering wheel, for a split second. The car began to
veer to the right. Jill grabbed the steering wheel, to steer the car back into the
lane – but it was all too late.
A: Under the ‘emergency doctrine’, a person in an emergency situation
is not held to the same accuracy of judgment or conduct as one who has had
full opportunity to reflect. Jill will contend that she was faced with a sudden
and unexpected circumstance which left little or no time for thought, deliberation
or consideration, and caused her to be reasonably so disturbed that she
needed to make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct.
Your attorney will need, against high odds, to make a convincing
argument that Jill enjoyed a full opportunity to reflect on the ongoing situation,
and to weigh alternative courses of conduct. He or she will need to pursuade
the jury that the culminating conduct was preceded by a series of similar incidents
– so that Jack’s ultimate act cannot be deemed sudden or unexpected.
Good luck.
SUMMER FUN