(dissenting). I write separately because I respectfully disagree with the lead opinion’s conclusion that the defendant’s conviction of negligent homicide1 must be reversed on the basis that the trial court "failed to apply the reasonable-person standard to the emergency situation which confronted the defendant.”2 Ante, p 210.
The trial court identified and applied the reasonable-person standard to all of the circumstances as they confronted the defendant, including the "sudden and unexpected event [which] occurred when the defendant came upon the real estate sign lying in the middle of his lane of traffic.” Ante, p 220. Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of negligent homicide should be affirmed.
i
The lead opinion concludes the trial court failed to apply the reasonable-person standard to the *225emergency situation that confronted the defendant. The opinion holds that the defendant simply reacted to an emergency, rather than created the emergency,3 and that, therefore, the "defendant’s conduct cannot be said to have been contrary to that of an ordinarily prudent person under similar circumstances.” Ante, pp 223-224.
Significantly, the opinion makes no reference to the standard of review that it presumably is applying to the trial court’s finding. In my view, however, the Court has simply substituted its own view of the evidence in preference for a different outcome of this trial. Where a jury is waived, the trial judge as a factfinder weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of the witnesses.4 An appellate court may not reverse the finding of guilt by a trial judge so long as any reasonable judge could have so found.5
In People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221; 380 NW2d 11 (1985), the Court determined that the standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal jury trials is also applicable to criminal bench trials. Speaking for six members of the Court, Justice Ryan stated:
[W]e think it clear that the Jackson [v Virginia, 443 US 307; 99 S Ct 2781; 61 L Ed 2d 560 (1979);] [People v] Hampton [407 Mich 354; 285 NW2d 284 (1979)] standard of whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should also be applied to bench trials. [Id., pp 269-270.]
Thus, the reviewing Court must view the evidence *226in a light most favorable to the prosecution.6 Id., p 268.
[T]his inquiry does not require a court to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted.) Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Jackson v Virginia, supra, pp 318-319. Emphasis in the original.]
The lead opinion’s departure from the Jackson-Hampton standard of review is illustrated by the following characterization of the evidence:
The evidence at trial established that a sudden and unexpected event occurred when the defendant came upon the real estate sign lying in the middle of his lane of traffic. Moreover, it was this unexpected event, coupled with the fact that there was no time to adequately weigh the alternatives, that prompted the defendant to instinctively and impulsively swerve his car to the left in an attempt to avoid the obstacle. [Ante, p 220. Emphasis added.]
In fact, the trial court found that the defendant was inattentive prior to observing the sign and that had he been attentive he could have slackened his speed. The court further found that in choosing to swerve into the lane of an oncoming car, the defendant did not act as a reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances.
After reviewing the record, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found the elements *227of negligent homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.7 Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to justify the trial court’s determination that the defendant was guilty of negligent homicide. Thus, the conclusion of the lead opinion can be explained only in one of two ways—disagreement with the Legislature’s determination to criminalize negligent homicide or rejection of People v Petrella.
ii
Whether the defendant "created an emergency as opposed to having been confronted with an emergency” and whether the defendant’s conduct was contrary to "that of an ordinarily prudent person under similar circumstances” are questions of fact, as to which, the lead opinion simply has substituted its own characterization of the evidence for that of the trial court.
Referring to the trial judge’s findings of fact, the lead opinion states:
The above excerpts clearly illustrate that the judge did identify the proper standard of care for determining whether or not the defendant’s conduct evidenced want of reasonable care given all the existing circumstances. Accordingly, we find no error with the standard of care applied by the trial court. However, we do find error with the court’s failure to apply the standard to the facts supported by the record. We find error with the court concluding that the defendant created an emer*228gency as opposed to having been confronted with an emergency. [Ante, pp 219-220.]
As this excerpt demonstrates, the trial judge is faulted, not for an error of law, but for his factual findings. The trial court’s finding of fact that the defendant created an emergency can be found to be error only if no rational judge could have so concluded.8
Thus, since, as the lead opinion itself recognizes, the judge did not commit legal error in the standard employed, the sole issue before us is whether a rational judge could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have failed to observe the sign in time to stop and, having failed to do so, would move into the lane of an oncoming car, thirty feet away.
In a negligence suit the trier of fact must take into consideration any "sudden or unexpected event or combination of circumstances” which confronted a person in evaluating whether the conduct was that of a reasonable person under all the circumstances. Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 33, pp 196-197.
It is evident from the trial judge’s decision that he took into consideration all of the events and circumstances which confronted the defendant and concluded that the defendant was acting unreasonably both prior to seeing the sign and after he saw it.
*229Ordinary negligence is greater than or above slight negligence, but less than gross negligence. Ordinary negligence is characterized by thoughtlessness, heedlessness and inattention. I invite your attention to this summation so to speak of what ordinary negligence is. It is characterized by thoughtlessness, heedlessness, and inattention. It seems to the Court that that’s the problem we have here and that is what is made out here in terms of Mr. Traughber’s conduct.
I want to note here particularly the testimony on cross examination. This is what Mr. Traughber said. Sure he wasn’t slurring words, he was aware and assured he was only going thirty-five miles per hour. Both lights on the other car were going. He saw the other car even before he saw the sign. He made a judgment to avoid the sign anyway. He saw the lights on the other car but he doesn’t recall the fog lights nor how bright the regular lights on that car were. That is the conclusive piece of evidence which the Court has that trips this entire matter into the category [of] ordinary negligence at least.
It was thoughtlessness, heedlessness, inattention. It is conclusive and very clear from the testimony of all the witnesses here that in the moments that Mr. Traughber with his friend went into that car and even before they went into that car, they were having a disturbing time. There was something that was distracting Mr. Traughber. He was concerned with the discussion that he was having with Irene. He was frustrated by the decisions apparently that Irene reached in terms of the things that he was discussing. He was not concentrating and that is quite evident from the fact that they drove around—driving around in a car and it could easily be said that he was apparently upset by the results and he was not it seems like in a proper frame of mind to be driving a car and finally the pinnacle circumstances that went on with the driving that night. No one was speeding. It can’t be said that anyone was recklessly in the sense of speeding. But in the totality of Mr. *230Traughber’s conduct, he demonstrated that thoughtlessness and that heedlessness and that inattention to his responsibility as the driver of the car so as to be guilty of ordinary negligence and that is what the Court must conclude in this matter and that is what is apparent from the total consideration of all the evidence in the case here.
I’m not saying as I indicated before that there was anything gross in the negligence of the defendant here and from his experience as a truck driver it would be even hard to say that he was an inexperienced man and that is what adds to the situation here. It appears quite obvious to the Court that with his experience as a truck driver, he could have and he should have been able to make a judgment factor at the time of going thirty-five miles an hour, having seen the car coming from the other direction as he said he did. That instead of going to the left to go around the sign, notwithstanding whatever risk about the ditch or the condition of the berm on the side of the road that he should have slacked his car and he could have gone easily around the sign on the right side of the sign and could have avoided the emergency that he created by trying to swerve to the left and then tried to swerve back to the right.
For reasons mentioned and discussed and the findings which the Court has made, it is the conclusion of the Court that as to count i of the information, the defendant is guilty as charged.
The sign lying in the road, as defense counsel himself recognized,9 was simply one of the circum*231stances contemplated by the normal standard of care in seeking to ascertain whether the defendant acted as an ordinarily prudent and careful person would act under the same circumstances.10 Prosser & Keeton, supra, p 196.
It is clear from reading the trial court’s summation of the evidence that the "emergency” was not the sign which might have been avoided, had the defendant not been inattentive, by "slackening his speed” or going to the right, but the defendant’s swerving to the left. Viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the trial judge cannot be said to have acted irrationally in finding that the defendant’s conduct in swerving into the opposite lane to avoid hitting a sign only one and one-half inches thick in the face of an oncoming car, only thirty feet away, was unreasonable.
in
We would find that the evidence presented was sufficient to justify the decision of the trial judge. The evidence showed that the defendant was traveling thirty-five miles per hour, that there was an area eleven feet wide between the sign and the edge of the ditch on the right side of the sign, and that the defendant testified that he saw the oncoming car in the opposite lane approximately only thirty feet away.11_,
*232As soon as the driver of the other car saw the defendant swerve into the northbound lane he tried to move into the defendant’s southbound lane to avoid hitting the defendant’s car. The other driver testified that he "got maybe a foot and a half to maybe two feet of my car over the center line before he hit me head on.” When asked to define "head on,” the driver stated that the defendant’s car "caught about three quarters of the front end of my car from right to the left” and that the defendant’s car was "all of it across the center line,” in his (the other driver’s) lane, that is, the northbound lane.
The defendant himself testified that he was only three feet into his own lane at the time of impact. Although the defendant’s testimony differed from that of the other driver, even if the defendant was three feet into his own lane, the cars were still in the northbound lane. Thus, while the point of impact, where the defendant’s left front end collided with the other driver’s right front side, where the decedent sat, might have occurred just inside the defendant’s lane, the cars still were in the northbound lane and not in the defendant’s lane.
The lead opinion asserts that the "two cars collided head-on just inside the defendant’s lane,” thus implying that the defendant had time to swerve into the other lane to avoid the sign, and indeed had returned to his own lane when the collision occurred. This description also implies that if only the other driver had stayed in his own lane, there would have not been an accident because the defendant could have made it back *233safely to his own lane. This is de novo review unsupported by the record. Even if the other driver had remained in the northbound lane, the defendant could not, and did not, have enough clear highway ahead to swerve into the other lane and back into his own lane since by his own testimony he only had thirty feet of space in which to do this.
The defendant, traveling at a moderate speed, did not see a sign lying in the road until he was on top of it.12 When the defendant did see the sign, he chose to swerve to the left, although there was space to the right of the sign, into the lane of an oncoming car, only thirty feet away, to avoid hitting the sign which, lying on its side, was approximately one and one-half inches thick. As a result, the defendant collided with the other car because there simply was not enough time for the defendant to return to his own lane and avoid the collision. There was "sufficient evidence” to support the defendant’s conviction of negligent homicide.13
CONCLUSION
The trial court held the defendant’s conduct to the correct standard of care and considered all of the circumstances which confronted the defendant in evaluating his conduct. Reviewing the entire evidence, under the appropriate standard, there is *234no basis for this Court to reverse the decision of the lower court. This Court cannot, and should not, substitute its judgment for that of a trial judge on questions of fact.
Accordingly, we would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the defendant’s conviction of negligent homicide.
Brickley and Griffin, JJ. concurred with Boyle, J.In Michigan, negligent homicide is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of a maximum term of two years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. MCL 750.324; MSA 28.556.
This Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the information for negligent homicide was sufficient to allow the defendant to adequately present a defense against specific acts of negligence, and whether the defendant’s conduct was held to the correct standard of care. People v Traughber, 430 Mich 857 (1988).
The lead opinion does not clarify whether the basis for reversal is that the trial court erred as a matter of law, or that the evidence was insufficient to support that court’s ultimate decision that the defendant was guilty of negligent homicide.
See People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221; 380 NW2d 11 (1985), in which this Court adopted the sufficient-evidence standard applicable to criminal jury trials for criminal bench trials.
The lead opinion substitutes its conclusion for that of the trial court that the defendant "created an emergency as opposed to having been confronted with an emergency.” Ante, p 220.
2 Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal, § 374, p 315.
See People v Petrella, n 2 supra.
See People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354; 285 NW2d 284 (1979), cert den 449 US 885 (1980).
The trial judge made specific findings on all the evidence introduced at trial, including the fact that the defendant swerved into the other lane to avoid hitting a real estate sign lying on its side in the defendant’s lane. The judge concluded that the defendant had failed to act as a "reasonable, prudent person under all the circumstances”; thus, the defendant’s conduct amounted to ordinary negligence and convicted the defendant of negligent homicide.
The lead opinion cites cases holding that a person should not be judged guilty of negligence merely because, in retrospect, the person is deemed not to have used the best judgment under the circumstances. However, those are situations in which under former law persons accused of contributory negligence in civil suits contested the allegations on the basis that their negligence was a reasonable reaction to the emergency created by the other party. See Maddux v Donaldson, 362 Mich 425, 428; 108 NW2d 33 (1961); Craddock v Torrence Oil Co, 322 Mich 510, 517; 34 NW2d 51 (1948); Loucks v Fox, 261 Mich 338, 343; 246 NW 141 (1933).
As defense counsel noted in his argument:
What this case boils down to me is what a driver does, what an average driver does when he’s driving down the road thirty-five miles an hour. It’s a paved road. He’s [it’s] got some cracks in it, some patches. We’ve got a narrow berm on his side with trees in a ditch and he sees a six foot sign and he has to decide immediately what to do.
Mr. Traughber testified that he just couldn’t go to the right and whether he should have gone over to the side and gone to *231the left and thought he could get back into his own lane is probably the question that the Court has got to determine.
The "emergency” doctrine also cannot serve to excuse an actor when the emergency was created through the actor’s own negligence. In addition, there are some "emergencies” which a person must anticipate. In present day traffic conditions, "any driver of an automobile must be prepared for the sudden appearance of obstacles and persons in the highway . . . .” Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 33, p 197.
It is important to note that thirty feet is approximately three car *232lengths and that a car traveling one mile per hour covers 1.5 feet per second. In this case, the defendant, traveling thirty-five miles per hour, would travel fifty-two and one-half feet per second, and the oncoming car would be traveling toward the defendant at approximately the same rate.
The fact that there are no street lights on Denton Road does not mean that, with his headlights on, the defendant could not have seen the sign until he was suddenly on top of it. The defendant had been drinking, was arguing with the passenger, Irene Baker, in the car, and thus did not see the sign until he came directly upon it. Then, rather than stop or swerve to the right of the sign, he swerved into the path of an oncoming car.
In this case, the trier of fact had to have found the defendant guilty of every element of the crime of negligent homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. MCL 750.324; MSA 28.556.