Hickman v. S. Pac. Transp. Co. - 262 La. 102, 262 So. 2d 385 (1972)

Rule:

One who suddenly finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or best means that may be adopted to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence. The rule applies to the defendant's as well as the plaintiff's conduct; it is, therefore, appropriate in a consideration of fault as it bears upon contributory negligence.

Facts:

The son suffered serious injuries after an accident occurred between the truck and the son's motorcycle. The mother filed an action on behalf of the son for personal injuries sustained by the son in the accident. The trial court denied recovery to the mother, finding the son guilty of contributory negligence. The appellate court affirmed. Appellant mother challenged the appellate court’s decision. 

Issue:

Was the appellant’s son contributorily negligent, thereby justifying the refusal to grant recovery to the appellant?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the son's decision was brought on by an emergency created by the truck driver's rash action in darting into the highway from the private driveway obstructing the free passage to which the son was entitled, that it was reasonable for the son to act as he did in the face of the sudden emergency, and that the son was not, therefore, contributorily negligent. Moreover, the court found that the truck driver was an employee of the alleged employer, that as the truck driver's employer, the alleged employer was responsible in solido with the truck driver for damages caused by his negligent conduct in the course and scope of his employment.