Carefully Here, the court cited Weiss v. Bal , 501 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 1993) ; Templeton v. Smith , 88 Or.App. 266, 744 P.2d 1325 (1987) ; DiCenzo v. Izawa , 68 Haw. 528, 723 P.2d 171 (1986) ; Gagnon v. Crane , 126 N.H. 781, 498 A.2d 718 (1985) ; and Bayer v. Shupe Bros. Co. , 223 Kan. 668, 576 P.2d 1078 (1978). drafted instructions about these situations direct a jury to assess fault for deviations from the negligence standard of ordinary care under emergency circumstances and are consistent with the assessment of fault under comparative negligence.

SeeSimonson v. White , 220 Mont. 14, 713 P.2d 983, 989 (1986) ; Finley v. Wiley , 103 N.J.Super. 95, 246 A.2d 715, 719 (Ct. App. Div. 1968).SeeDiCenzo v. Izawa , 68 Haw. 528, 723 P.2d 171, 181 (1986) ; Keel v. Compton , 120 Ill.App.2d 248, 256 N.E.2d 848, 853 (1970) ; Bayer v. Shupe Bros. Co. , 223 Kan. 668, 576 P.2d 1078, 1080 (1978) ; Gagnon v. Crane , 126 N.H. 781, 498 A.2d 718, 721 (1985). [¶21.] A sudden emergency instruction seldom, if ever, provides the jury with helpful insight on the general standard of care.

Some courts have explicitly held that a separate sudden emergency instruction should never be given in negligence actions. Bass v. Williams, 839 S.W.2d 559 (Ky.Ct.App. 1992); McClymont v. Morgan, 238 Neb. 390, 470 N.W.2d 768 (1991); Simonson v. White, 220 Mont. 14, 713 P.2d 983 (1986); Knapp v. Stanford, 392 So.2d 196 (Miss. 1980). Other courts have discouraged the use of a separate sudden emergency instruction in negligence actions. Weiss v. Bal, 501 N.W.2d 478 (Ia. 1993); Templeton v. Smith, 88 Or. App. 266, 744 P.2d 1325 (1987), rev. denied, 305 Or. 45, 749 P.2d 1182 (1988); DiCenzo v. Izawa, 68 Haw. 528, 723 P.2d 171 (1986); Gagnon v. Crane, 126 N.H. 781, 498 A.2d 718 (1985); Bayer v. Shupe Bros. Co., 223 Kan. 668, 576 P.2d 1078 (1978). The model jury instructions in Illinois, Florida, Kansas, and Missouri recommend that a separate instruction on sudden emergency should not be given in negligence actions. Prosser and Keeton on Torts at § 33. However, other courts have explicitly preserved the continued use of a separate sudden emergency instruction despite arguments that the emergency doctrine suggests a lower standard of care than ordinary negligence and has been abolished by comparative negligence.