Kendrick v. Pippin
252 P.3d 1052
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Accident occurred February 10, 2006, at the intersection of Highway 287 and 37th Street in Loveland under winter driving conditions with snow/ice on roads.
- Kendrick sued Pippin for negligence after Pippin’s vehicle slid and struck Kendrick’s stopped vehicle in the left-turn lane.
- At trial, the jury found Pippin not negligent; Kendrick appealed alleging error on three trial court rulings.
- The trial court instructed the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine; Kendrick proposed res ipsa loquitur; Kendrick alleged juror misconduct.
- Court of Appeals affirmed on all three issues; this court reversed on the sudden emergency issue but affirmed on res ipsa loquitur and juror misconduct, remanding for a new trial in Kendrick’s favor on the sudden emergency issue.
- This court ultimately held that the trial court erred in instructing on sudden emergency and remanded for a new trial on that issue; the other two issues were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sudden emergency instruction proper? | Kendrick argues road conditions were not sudden/ unexpected. | Pippin contends evidence supported sudden emergency. | Erroneous; no competent evidence of sudden emergency; reverse on this issue. |
| Res ipsa loquitur instruction proper? | Kendrick contends evidence supports res ipsa loquitur. | Pippin argues events fit ordinary accident; no presumption. | Not entitled; record fails first element; court affirmed on this issue. |
| Juror misconduct occurred? | Kendrick contends foreperson’s calculations were extraneous information. | Pippin argues juror used background knowledge appropriately. | No juror misconduct; juror’s use of professional knowledge did not constitute extraneous information; court affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Clark, 814 P.2d 364 (Colo. 1991) (sudden emergency standard; emergency may be sudden even when generally foreseeable)
- Cudney v. Moore, 163 Colo. 30, 428 P.2d 81 (Colo. 1967) (illustrates when sudden emergency instruction warranted)
- Stewart v. Stout, 143 Colo. 70, 351 P.2d 847 (Colo. 1960) (unanticipated road conditions on a curve case supporting emergency instruction)
- Bettner v. Boring, 764 P.2d 829 (Colo. 1988) (rear-end/ice condition contexts; limits of res ipsa loquitur application)
- Ravin v. Gambrell, 788 P.2d 817 (Colo. 1990) (elements of res ipsa loquitur; three-part test)
- Harlan v. People, 109 P.3d 616 (Colo. 2005) (CRE 606(b) limitations and extraneous information; juror testimony framework)
- Destination Travel, Inc. v. McElhanon, 799 P.2d 454 (Colo. App. 1990) (juror misconduct; extraneous information from juror estimates not allowed when specific to case)