184 P.3d 1115 (2008)
On review, the leading driver contended the emergency instruction should not have been given.
- The supreme court agreed and held that the emergency instruction, as used in ordinary vehicle negligence cases, was an inaccurate and confusing supplement to the instructions on the law of negligence.
- The emergency instruction was erroneous because it introduced into the liability determination additional concepts that were not part of the ordinary negligence standard: whether the person had a "choice," whether the person made a "choice" that a reasonable person "might" make, and whether the person made the "wisest" choice or not.
- The addition of those new, otherwise-undefined concepts to the standard of reasonable care in light of all the circumstances injected a likely source of juror confusion as to the legal standard to be applied.
- The general negligence standard embodied in Or. Unif. Jury Instructions Civ. 20.02 encompassed any legitimate concerns about "emergency" circumstances.
- As the emergency instruction incorrectly stated the law and likely confused the jury as to the correct legal standard to apply, it substantially affected the leading driver's rights.
The rulings of the appellate court and the trial court were reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law