emergency doctrine

Under the doctrine variously referred to as the "emergency," "imminent peril," or "sudden peril" doctrine, when one is confronted with a sudden peril requiring instinctive action, he is not, in determining his course of action, held to the exercise of the same degree of care as when he has time for reflection, and in the event that a driver of a motor vehicle suddenly meets with an emergency which naturally would overpower the judgment of a reasonably prudent and careful driver, so that momentarily he is thereby rendered incapable of deliberate and intelligent action, and as a result injures a third person, he is not negligent, provided he has used due care to avoid meeting such an emergency and, after it arises, he exercises such care as a reasonably prudent and capable driver would use under the unusual circumstances. Sandberg v. Spoelstra, 46 Wash.2d 776, 285 P.2d 564, 568.

In an emergency situation when medical service is required for an adult who by virtue of his physical condition is incapable of giving consent, or with respect to a child, whose parent or other guardian is absent, and thus incapable of giving consent, the law implies the consent required to administer emergency medical services. This is a good defense to an action of tort for an alleged battery