Torts sample analysis
MBE Torts Negligence Sudden Emergency Scenario + Examiner Analysis
See a fresh MBE negligence sudden-emergency scenario with examiner-style torts analysis, distractor notes, and a short quiz teaser.
Fact pattern
Ava was driving within the speed limit on a two-lane highway during clear daylight. A delivery truck traveling in the opposite direction blew a front tire, crossed the center line, and entered Ava's lane. Ava jerked the wheel right to avoid a head-on collision, clipped a mailbox, and struck Ben, who was standing several feet off the shoulder taking photographs. Ben sued Ava for negligence and argues that Ava should have braked in a straight line instead of swerving.
Quick answer
Ava is likely not negligent because the truck's sudden invasion of her lane created an emergency she did not cause, and her evasive swerve was a reasonable response under the circumstances. Negligence asks whether the defendant acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. A sudden emergency not of the defendant's own making is one of those circumstances. The doctrine does not create immunity, but it recognizes that a person confronted with an unexpected danger may be reasonable even if, with calmer hindsight, a different response would have been safer. The defense fails if the defendant created or substantially contributed to the emergency.
Canonical URL: https://www.barprepplay.com/mbe/torts/negligence-sudden-emergency/
IRAC model answer
Does the sudden-emergency doctrine excuse Ava's split-second choice, or can Ben still prove that Ava acted unreasonably?
Negligence asks whether the defendant acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. A sudden emergency not of the defendant's own making is one of those circumstances. The doctrine does not create immunity, but it recognizes that a person confronted with an unexpected danger may be reasonable even if, with calmer hindsight, a different response would have been safer. The defense fails if the defendant created or substantially contributed to the emergency.
Ava starts with a strong sudden-emergency argument because the record says she was driving lawfully when the truck suddenly invaded her lane. A reasonably prudent driver facing an oncoming vehicle only moments away does not have time for perfect deliberation. Ben is right that braking in a straight line might look better when the scene is reconstructed after the fact, but negligence law judges Ava from the moment of crisis, not from hindsight. Her quick swerve is the kind of instinctive evasive action many careful drivers would take when confronted with an immediate risk of serious injury or death. Ben can still recover if he proves that Ava helped create the danger, for example by speeding, looking at her phone, or drifting within her lane before the truck crossed over. Those facts are not present here. He could also argue that swerving onto the shoulder was unreasonable because Ben was visible well before the truck crossed the line, but the fact pattern suggests the emergency unfolded abruptly. On these facts, Ava has the better position because the emergency was external and her response was within the range of reasonable split-second reactions.
Ava is likely not negligent because the truck's sudden invasion of her lane created an emergency she did not cause, and her evasive swerve was a reasonable response under the circumstances.
Numbered reasoning steps
- State the ordinary negligence standard before mentioning sudden emergency.
- Confirm that the defendant did not create the emergency by prior careless conduct.
- Evaluate the response from the perspective of the crisis, not with hindsight.
- Explain why sudden emergency modifies the reasonableness inquiry instead of eliminating it.
- Address the plaintiff's alternative-response argument and explain why it is weaker on these facts.
Why wrong answers fail
The doctrine only informs reasonableness. A defendant can still be negligent if the reaction itself falls outside reasonable bounds.
The plaintiff's innocence does not answer the breach question. The key is whether Ava acted reasonably during the emergency.
Negligence does not punish a defendant for failing to choose the single best option during a sudden crisis.
The fact that injury occurred does not by itself prove breach. The emergency analysis focuses on the decision-making context.
Issue-spotting checklist
- Begin with duty, breach, causation, and damages before narrowing to breach.
- Ask who created the emergency and whether the defendant contributed to it.
- Avoid hindsight bias when comparing alternative evasive actions.
- Explain that sudden emergency is part of the reasonableness standard, not a separate magic defense.
- Use the exact facts about speed, visibility, and reaction time to test breach.
Primary law and source anchors
- Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 296 A sudden emergency is part of the circumstances considered when judging whether conduct is negligent.
- Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (N.Y. City Ct. 1941) A driver confronted with an immediate threat is not held to the calm judgment possible in ordinary conditions.
- Myhaver v. Knutson, 942 P.2d 445 (Ariz. 1997) A sudden-emergency instruction is appropriate only when the peril is sudden and not created by the defendant.