Emergency Doctrine – A normally stoic appellate division appears to be letteing loose (a bit)

The emergency doctrine in New York personal injury law provides protection for drivers who face sudden, unexpected circumstances not of their own making. This legal principle recognizes that when drivers encounter emergencies, they shouldn’t be held to the same standard of care as those operating under normal conditions. However, courts typically apply this doctrine with measured, formal language that rarely reveals judicial personality.

In a refreshing departure from typical appellate court restraint, the Second Department delivered an unusually colorful opinion in Mayard v Wheels, Inc., demonstrating that even stoic appellate judges occasionally let their true thoughts shine through their formal legal analysis. The case involved a complex multi-vehicle collision scenario that tested the boundaries of driver responsibility under emergency circumstances.

For practitioners handling New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases, this decision provides valuable insight into how courts evaluate driver liability when vehicles ricochet unpredictably after initial impact.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Mayard v Wheels, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 00653 (2d Dept. 2010)

“Under these circumstances, where McKenzie was faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of his own making, under any view of the evidence, the emergency doctrine [*2]applied (see Jones v Geoghan, 61 AD3d 638). The Wheels defendants met their burden of establishing that McKenzie was not liable for the collision involving his minivan and the Shishko vehicle (see Marsch v Catanzaro, 40 AD3d 941). A driver is not obligated to anticipate that a vehicle, upon being struck by another vehicle, will then hit a guardrail and subsequently bounce across several lanes of traffic (id. at 942). The plaintiff’s speculation that inattentiveness on the part of McKenzie caused the collision, or that he might have been able to take measures to avoid the contact with the Shishko vehicle, was insufficient to defeat that branch of the Wheels defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment.”

You can just imagine what the law clerk who was writing this decision was thinking when (s)he wrote the bold portion above.

Key Takeaway

The emergency doctrine protects drivers from liability when they encounter truly unforeseeable circumstances. Courts will not impose a duty to anticipate bizarre accident sequences like vehicles bouncing off guardrails across multiple traffic lanes. The decision’s unusually direct language suggests even judges find some plaintiff theories unreasonably far-fetched.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 analysis of emergency doctrine application, New York courts have continued to refine the standards for when this defense applies, particularly regarding sudden circumstance requirements and the “not of one’s own making” element. Practitioners should verify current case law developments and any regulatory changes affecting emergency doctrine standards in no-fault insurance contexts, as judicial interpretation of these principles has evolved over the past fifteen years.