Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-18-8 (due care by drivers). Defendant’s vehicle struck a fifteen-year-old girl while she was in a crosswalk. Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in sustaining the violation because the citation contained an error, listing the road conditions as dry when, in fact, they were wet and icy. Whether the citation’s description of the road conditions was an error was a question of fact, and the Appeals Panel properly deferred to the credibility findings of the trial judge. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Additionally, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to apply the “sudden emergency doctrine” because Defendant could not have reasonably foreseen the girl crossing the street. The sudden emergency doctrine is only applicable “when one is confronted with an unforeseeable emergency not caused by his or her own negligence.” Malinowski v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 727 A.2d 194, 197 (R.I. 1999). The Appeals Panel held that the sudden emergency doctrine was not applicable in the instant case because “it is reasonably foreseeable that pedestrians will cross the street in a crosswalk.” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial judge.