united-states traffic driving oregon trolley-problem
Is it legal to intentionally cause a probably non-fatal accident to prevent a likely fatal accident?
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/t609G.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/t609G.png" alt="explanation below" /></a></p>
<p>(sorry about the really bad drawing)</p>
<p>Two cars, A and B, are at an intersection. A is stopped at a stop sign; B is moving and does not have a stop sign. Across the intersection from B, there is a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The pedestrian cannot feasibly escape, and B does not appear to be stopping. B is far enough back that A could prevent them from hitting the pedestrian by pulling into the road. B is driving at a speed at which hitting a pedestrian would probably kill the pedestrian, but crashing into another car would probably not result in any fatalities. Is it legal for A to pull out in front of B, intentionally causing a relatively minor accident to avoid a fatal one? Is A at fault?</p>

<p>Deliberately causing an accident is illegal. However, in some (probably many) jurisdictions there is a &quot;necessity&quot; defense against criminal charges. <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa05ea0e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&amp;bhcp=1&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">In Washington</a> it goes like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Necessity is a defense to a charge of (fill in crime) if</p>
<p>(1) the defendant reasonably believed the commission of the crime was
necessary to avoid or minimize a harm;</p>
<p>(2) harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm resulting from
a violation of the law;</p>
<p>(3) the threatened harm was not brought about by the defendant; and</p>
<p>(4) no reasonable legal alternative existed. The defendant has the
burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
Preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded,
considering all the evidence in the case, that it is more probably
true than not true. If you find that the defendant has established
this defense, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty
[as to this charge].</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is possible, if B is attempting to kill the pedestrian, that you have <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa01084e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29&amp;bhcp=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">defense of others</a> available as well.</p>
