Three-Car Accident In Estill County Kills Irvine Man.
A 47-year old man was killed in a three-car Estill County accident Thursday. Jerry W. Chaney, of Irvine, was driving west on Ky. 52 when Colburn Babb swerved into Chaney’s lane and hit Chaney’s pickup truck head on. Babb had swerved to avoid the Pontiac driven by Christopher Roberts, which had just pulled in front of him. Before colliding with Chaney’s truck, Babb’s car struck the rear right bumper of Roberts’ Pontiac.
Legal analysis by Shawn Cantley [profile]:
Incidents like this one present various legal issues and often lead to an invocation of the sudden emergency doctrine as a defense as well as use of Kentucky comparative fault laws.
Kentucky drivers are liable for injuries proximately caused by the negligent operation of their vehicles. In many head-on accidents the driver that switched lanes is liable for injuries to the driver of the other vehicle. Under the sudden emergency doctrine, however, the swerving driver may not be liable. While the sudden emergency doctrine doesn’t excuse one from fault, it shifts the standard used by juries in evaluating the allegedly negligent driver’s conduct.
A jury is normally supposed to consider whether or not the allegedly negligent individual’s conduct was below what a prudent person would do under the circumstances. In situations where the defendant is confronted with a sudden condition that he or she had no reason to anticipate and did not bring on through their own actions, the jury is allowed to consider what a prudent person would have done when confronted with a situation that allows no time for deliberation. Taking into account Mr. Roberts’ actions and Mr. Babb’s attempts to avoid him, a jury might consider his actions prudent under the circumstances.
Recognizing the reality that sometimes there is more than one party at fault, Kentucky law also embraces comparative fault principles. In comparative fault cases the jury is permitted to consider the percentage to which each party involved is at fault and then damages are apportioned accordingly.
For example, if a plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages at the hands of two defendants the jury could determine that each defendant was 50% to blame. In that scenario each defendant would have to pay half of the damages. The defendant is also permitted to allege the plaintiff should share some of the fault for the damages. Using the same example, the jury could find the plaintiff 20% to blame and each defendant only 40% at fault. This time the plaintiff would only receive damages for the 80% they were not at fault, totaling $80,000 with each defendant paying their $40,000 share.
In accidents involving three parties, such as this one, comparative fault is often an issue. The jury would likely be presented with various theories by the different parties’ lawyers regarding who was to blame for the accident and, if liable, how much of the blame they should share.
