## Facts

- On January 26, 1994, Valerie J. Leahy was driving south on Butler Pike near Township Line Road in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, on a dark, snowy night with slippery roads and no street lighting.
- The roadway was one lane each direction and included a downhill grade that leveled briefly before a sharper downward slope.
- Leahy’s car slid, became lodged in a snowbank on the right side of the road, and (by her testimony) completely blocked the southbound lane.
- Gary McClain, also traveling south, testified he did not see Leahy’s vehicle until moments before impact due to the weather, grade, and visibility conditions.
- McClain testified he had only an instant to decide how to react and continued straight to avoid vehicles to the left and trees to the right.
- Leahy sued McClain for negligence seeking damages for personal injuries.
- McClain did not expressly plead the sudden emergency doctrine in his responsive pleadings.

## Issues

1. Whether the sudden emergency doctrine is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pleaded to permit a jury instruction on the doctrine.
2. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by excluding photographs of the accident scene taken in daylight and under dry conditions.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the defense verdict and the judgment for McClain.
- The court held the sudden emergency doctrine is not an affirmative defense requiring specific pleading; a charge is proper when supported by trial evidence.
- The court held the trial evidence supported the sudden emergency instruction given the dark, snowy conditions, roadway grade, lack of lighting, and limited time to react to a lane-blocking vehicle.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding photographs taken under materially different conditions because their limited probative value was outweighed by risk of misleading the jury.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania negligence cases, the sudden emergency doctrine functions as a refinement of the reasonable-care standard when a person faces a sudden, unexpected peril not of their own making.
- Because the doctrine addresses the applicable standard of care rather than avoiding liability as “new matter,” it need not be specifically pleaded for a jury instruction, provided the evidence warrants the charge.
- A sudden emergency instruction does not compel a defense verdict; the jury may still find negligence if the response was unreasonable under the emergency circumstances.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude photographs, particularly where the images do not fairly depict conditions at the time of the incident and may mislead or cause unfair prejudice.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is deferential; reversal requires an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict finding no negligence, concluding that a sudden emergency instruction may be given without prior pleading when supported by the evidence and that excluding accident-scene photographs taken under different conditions fell within the trial court’s evidentiary discretion.


Leahy v. McClain, 732 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999)