In traffic accident lawsuits, there is a defense that relies on the “sudden emergency doctrine.” It is a legal theory that recognizes those who are facing a sudden emergency should not be held to the same standard of care as someone who acts without the time pressure of an immediate emergency.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n This sudden emergency doctrine includes medical events. The 1955 Florida Supreme Court case of Bridges v. Spear<\/em>\u00a0established the “sudden and unexpected loss of capacity” defense for when the operator of an automobile loses consciousness or becomes incapacitated. Those individuals aren’t typically negligent. However, they do need to show (per the 2010 state appellate court case of\u00a0Abreu v. F.E. Dev. Recycling, Inc<\/em>.,) that the loss of consciousness occurred before the negligent conduct, that it was sudden and that it was not foreseen\/ foreseeable.<\/p>\n In a recent case out of Maryland, officials are trying to determine whether a bus driver who reportedly caused a (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In traffic accident lawsuits, there is a defense that relies on the “sudden emergency doctrine.” It is a legal theory that recognizes those who are facing a sudden emergency should not be held to the same standard of care as…<\/span><\/p>\n