Hancock-Underwood v. Knight

Supreme Court of Virginia · 2009 · Torts

TortsJury InstructionsNegligenceunavoidable accidentsudden emergencyjury instructionsnegligencemedical emergency

Facts

At night on Route 130, Hancock's van crossed the centerline and struck Knight's truck, despite Knight moving as far right as possible. Rhonda Hancock and Charles Hancock testified that about a minute to a minute and a half before the collision, Hancock complained of a severe headache and then slumped over the wheel, and that he had not seemed sleepy or tired beforehand. After the crash, Hancock briefly spoke but his speech became slurred and then stopped. A neurological expert testified that Hancock suffered an acute intracranial event, most likely an intracranial hemorrhage, and that it was extremely unlikely he had fallen asleep or had a migraine headache.

Issue

Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on unavoidable accident and sudden emergency where the evidence suggested Hancock suffered a sudden medical event while driving? More specifically, was either requested instruction supported by the evidence and legally proper?

Rule

It is error in Virginia to grant an unavoidable accident instruction because it merely restates negligence principles, overemphasizes the defendant's case, and is apt to confuse and mislead the jury. A sudden emergency instruction is proper only when supported by more than a scintilla of evidence that, without prior negligence, the actor was confronted with a sudden emergency and acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the circumstances; if the evidence shows no responsive action by the actor, the instruction is unsupported.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a Virginia negligence trial arising from a two-car collision in Roanoke, Devon Pike claims the crash happened without any negligence because a gust of wind pushed his pickup slightly across the lane line. He asks the court to instruct the jury that an unavoidable accident is one that ordinary care could not have prevented or that occurred without negligence by either party.

How should the Virginia trial court rule on the requested instruction?

Explanation. The majority held that it is error in Virginia to grant an unavoidable accident instruction. The court concluded that the instruction merely restates ordinary negligence principles, overemphasizes the defense, and is apt to confuse or mislead the jury. The defendant may still argue absence of negligence under standard burden, negligence, and proximate-cause instructions, but the unavoidable-accident instruction itself should not be given.