A recent head on motor vehicle accident caused by an apparent sneeze raises questions as to whether the sneezing driver can be held responsible for such an accident. The operator of a motor vehicle reportedly blamed his loss of control of his vehicle and ensuing head on accident on the fact that he sneezed. The answer under New Jersey law is not clear.
Generally, an operator of a motor vehicle in New Jersey has an obligation to share the road with all other users of the highway and make reasonable and proper observations so as to avoid negligently injuring others. Basically, a driver is charged with maintaining proper control of his vehicle at all times and take such actions as a reasonably prudent person would take under like circumstances.
However, there are times when certain circumstances may arise while one is operating a car where an accident or collision occurs despite the fact that all drivers acted reasonably and prudent under the circumstances they are confronted with. New Jersey case law ascribes to the Sudden Emergency Doctrine. This Doctrine states that when one is confronted with a sudden unexpected occurrence, they will only be required to take actions that reasonable people would take under the same or similar circumstances. However, the types of "sudden emergencies" that would allow a driver to benefit from this doctrine are those that are totally unexpected. For instance, the loss of control of a vehicle on ice and snow in a snow storm would be reasonably expected. Further, it has been held that an operator of a vehicle should reasonably expect other drivers to stop short in front of them or to cut them off.
Under this analysis, would a sneeze constitute a sudden emergency? No New Jersey case has addressed this specific issue. However, it would appear that the answer lies in the knowledge of the driver concerning prior instances of sneezing that may have caused him to lose control temporarily in the past as well as what specific actions were taken on the date of the accident. For instance, an operator of a vehicle that loses consciousness due to a heart attack or other similar medical condition will only be responsible for an accident occurring as a result of his unconsciousness if he knew or should have known of the possibility that such a result would occur. In this regard, inquiry will be made into prior instances of losing consciousness and whether the driver knew or should have known that it was likely such an attack would occur while driving.
Thus, in the case of the sneezing driver, all of the facts must be known before making a determination. Had he suffered from sneezing fits in the past? If so, when? If so, did they render him unable to control a vehicle? Did he have similar issues earlier in the day? The answer ultimately will lie in the answers to these questions, the arguments asserted by counsel and the decisions by the assigned Judge in any lawsuit brought.
