The sudden emergency defense and the La Brea crash

Six weeks have passed since Nicole Linton caused the horrible crash at La Brea and Slauson. The crash and its horrific aftermath - six people dead - shocked all of us. The public's outrage was expressed by Superior Court Judge Victoria Wilson, who in denying Linton's motion to be released to a mental health facility, remarked that Linton "stole six innocent lives."

The passage of time along with court documents are starting to paint a clearer picture of what happened on Aug. 4. Prosecutors maintain that Linton intentionally and consciously kept her steering wheel straight and floored the gas pedal for five full seconds as she approached the busy intersection. Earlier reports claimed she reached 90 miles per hour, but more recent documents indicate the number to be closer to 130 miles per hour. It was, as prosecutors argued, a "NASCAR-worthy performance."

Linton's defense team has argued that the nurse blacked out prior to the crash and has no recollection of the events. Mental-health professionals associated with her defense have pointed to her history of bipolar disorder, previous instances where she lost consciousness, panic attacks, and even hospitalizations in psychiatric facilities on more than one occasion. These arguments suggest that Linton is pursuing the "sudden emergency defense." The following is a discussion of the defense, and whether it might be applicable in the civil lawsuits that are sure to come.

Sudden Emergency Defense

CACI 452 provides the elements to the sudden emergency defense. A defendant asserting the defense has the burden to prove:

There was a sudden and unexpected emergency situation in which someone was in actual or apparent danger of immediate injury;

The defendant did not cause the emergency; and

The defendant acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted in similar circumstances, even if it appears later that a different course of action would have been safer.

Additionally, the doctrine does not apply to persons whose conduct causes or contributes to the imminent peril. See Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 207; Shiver v. Laramee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 395.

Here, Nicole Linton appears to be laying the groundwork to assert the defense. She has argued that she blacked out and does not remember the crash, nor the events leading up to it. The problem is, her history of mental health issues likely forecloses the defense's applicability.

A key issue in the sudden emergency defense, as it is in most torts cases, is foreseeability. Were there any warning signs that the defendant ignored that could have predicted the subsequent crash or injuries? Was the defendant prescribed medication intended to prevent the harm that he or she later caused? Did the defendant suffer previous episodes of illness that he or she displayed in this particular crash?

For example, several years ago, a client was injured when the driver of the car he was riding in suffered a stroke behind the wheel. The stroke incapacitated the driver, and the car traveling at 70 miles per hour came to a stop only after slamming into the center divider and three other cars. Through our investigation, we discovered that the client had gone to dinner with the driver, and the driver was complaining of chest pains during the meal. The driver took medication and had suffered previous cardiac episodes. These factors - among others - were enough to overcome the sudden emergency defense.

In this case, we have the answers to some of the questions posed above. Linton's attorneys argued that she had lost consciousness in the past. This alone would be strong evidence that her blacking out on Aug. 4 was foreseeable. Linton has a history of suffering from bipolar disorder, and has been hospitalized for psychiatric issues before. Based on what appears to be a substantial history of mental health issues, it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the crash Linton caused on Aug. 4 was foreseeable.

Bashi v. Wadarz (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1314 is also instructive. In Bashi, the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff and claimed to have no recollection of the incident. She asserted the sudden emergency defense based on her history of mental illness. The Court there provided reasoning that should apply here too: mental illness is not a defense to negligence claims.

Conclusion

We now know more about the events leading up to the Aug. 4 crash at La Brea and Slauson. Defense lawyers have portrayed Nicole Linton as a hard-working nurse who succumbed to the stresses of the job and other mental health issues. But Linton's health history suggests that this crash was in-fact foreseeable. These facts, as well as on-point caselaw and the civil jury instructions likely would be enough to overcome the sudden emergency defense in a negligence lawsuit. If the evidence supports a conclusion that this crash was intentional - as prosecutors claim - victims of the crash may find themselves facing an uninsured driver with slim chances of financial recovery against Ms. Linton.