## Facts

- A low-speed collision occurred in a bank drive-in lane in Anchorage, Alaska.
- E. H. Sibert was stopped in line; Mary Bernice Wilson was stopped behind him, with disputed spacing between their vehicles.
- Sibert saw the vehicle ahead abruptly backing toward him and, reacting immediately, shifted into reverse and backed into the front of the Wilson vehicle.
- The impact pushed a fender into the tire of the Wilson vehicle, leaving it immobile.
- Before backing, Sibert did not sound his horn, look behind, or use mirrors to determine whether anyone was behind him; he described his action as a reflex to avoid being hit from the front.
- Sibert did not know whether the front vehicle would have struck him and became aware Wilson was behind him only upon impact.
- Mrs. Wilson testified she glanced up, saw Sibert backing toward her, and honked, but he did not stop before contact.
- The vehicle ahead left the scene and was never identified.
- The Wilsons sued for negligence and related damages; Sibert denied negligence and asserted the unidentified driver’s conduct triggered the event.
- After trial, the jury found Sibert not negligent; judgment was entered for Sibert.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict for the Wilsons on Sibert’s negligence where he backed without looking or warning.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Sibert.
- The trial court properly denied a directed verdict because fair-minded jurors could differ on whether Sibert acted reasonably under the circumstances.
- The sudden emergency instruction was supported by evidence and correctly stated the law; giving it was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is improper if, viewing evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party, reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions on negligence.
- Under the sudden emergency doctrine, a person confronted with an unexpected peril not of the person’s own making is judged by what a reasonable person would do when compelled to act quickly, not by hindsight.
- Apparent violation of a traffic safety rule (such as backing only when safe) does not require judgment as a matter of law when the evidence permits a finding that an emergency excused or mitigated the conduct.
- Whether an emergency existed, whether the actor helped create it, and whether the response was reasonable are typically fact questions for the jury.

## Conclusion

The court held that Sibert’s backing without looking or warning, when taken in context of an asserted sudden emergency created by an unidentified driver, presented jury questions on negligence and statutory excuse; the defense verdict and emergency instruction were therefore affirmed.


Wilson v. Sibert, 535 P.2d 1034 (Alaska 1975)