¶1dissenting.
¶2Because I believe that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the doctrine of sudden emergency, I do not agree that the plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial.
¶3The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, see Bolick v. Sunbird Airlines, Inc., 96 N.C. App. 443, 448, 386 S.E.2d 76, 79 (1989) (in determining whether instruction is required, evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to proponent), aff’d per curiam, 327 N.C. 464, 396 S.E.2d 323 (1990), reveals that defendant was driving behind his sister-in-law in a rain storm. Defendant approached a truck on the side of the road with its “emergency red lights flashing” and his wife noticed that his sister-in-law’s truck was over in a ditch, near the truck with its emergency lights on. Defendant knew that his sister-in-law and her youngest child were in the truck. Defendant’s wife saw that his sister-in-law was inside the truck with the emergency lights, but defendant did not know the location of the child. In response to this situation, defendant “pull[ed] over to . .. the emergency exit on the road . . . backed” down the side of the road about “eight or ten yards,” waited for a car to pass, backed “another eight to ten yards” and stopped, because he was close enough to his sister-in-law’s truck. This evidence can support a reasonable inference that the. defendant was faced with an “emergency and [was] compelled to act instantly to avoid . . . injury” to another. Foy v. Bremson, 286 N.C 108, 116, 209 S.E.2d 439, 444 (1974); Bolick, 96 N.C. App. at 448, 386 S.E.2d at 79. A reasonable inference is that the defendant, after being suddenly confronted with an accident scene which involved his sister-in-law and her child, believed that the situation required immediate action to prevent some possible further harm to them and it was, therefore, proper to instruct the jury to evaluate his conduct accordingly. Because I believe that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial, I likewise would not disturb the judgment of the trial court dismissing the third party action.