When Is a “Sudden Medical Emergency” a Defense to an Oregon Personal Injury Lawsuit?

Personal injury claims are based on the legal concept of negligence. For instance, in the context of a car accident, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was negligent in their failure to safely operate their vehicle as a reasonable person would under the circumstances. So if the defendant, say, suddenly changed lanes without warning or drove the wrong way on a two-way street, those would be examples of negligent driving.

But what if the defendant claims they suffered a “sudden medical emergency” that led them to drive that way? If a driver has a heart attack or suffers a sudden and unexpected seizure, are they still legally responsible for causing an accident? In some cases, the answer is “no.” Oregon law recognizes sudden medical emergencies as a valid defense to a personal injury case.  However, a good personal injury attorney will explore whether the facts of the medical emergency support this defense and if the defense can be defeated.

New Trial Ordered in Case Involving Driver’s Seizure

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently clarified that evidence of a sudden medical emergency is part of a defendant’s overall denial of negligence as opposed to a separate affirmative defense. What does that mean? In simple terms, an affirmative defense is where instead of simply denying the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant brings up new issues or facts that, if true, provide grounds for dismissing the plaintiff’s case, or at least awarding them less in damages.

For example, in personal injury cases a defendant will often use the affirmative defense of comparative fault, i.e., the plaintiff’s actions actually caused or significantly contributed to the accident in question. The defendant must raise such an affirmative defense early in a case.  If they wait until trial to raise the issue for the first time, the judge will likely tell them it is too late.

That is what happened in the case that went before the Court of Appeals. In Loper v. Brakel, the plaintiff sued the defendant following a rear-end accident at a red light. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged the defendant’s negligence caused the collision. The defendant denied negligence but did not raise any affirmative defenses in his reply.

Shortly before the trial began, however, the defendant proposed to introduce evidence that he suffered a seizure and lost consciousness just before the crash–i.e., he suffered a “sudden medical emergency” that absolved him of any liability. The plaintiff objected, arguing this was an affirmative defense that should have been included in his answer to the complaint. The judge agreed and barred the defense from introducing any evidence related to the seizure at trial. The jury subsequently returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded $5.5 million in damages.

The Court of Appeals, however, ordered a new trial after agreeing with the defendant that evidence related to his seizure was not a new issue but rather one of many “circumstances that a jury must consider in deciding whether the plaintiff has proved negligence.” Put differently, the defendant sought to present evidence to refute the plaintiff’s allegations–that his negligence caused the rear-end accident–as opposed to proving an unrelated issue such as the plaintiff’s comparative fault.

Contact a Portland Car Accident Lawyer Today

While it is often true that the trailing driver is ultimately found liable for a rear-end car accident, there are cases like the one discussed above where the defendant may offer credible evidence to the contrary. This is why it is important to work with an experienced Portland rear-end crash lawyer who can review your case and represent you in taking legal action. Contact Rosenbaum Law Group, PC, today at 503-288-8000 to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll5/id/39980/rec/1