Tidd v. Kroshus, 870 N.W.2d 181

On Aug. 18, 2010, Tidd (bicyclist) collided with Kroshus’s car as he emerged from an alley onto a sidewalk/street in Fargo; Tidd sued for negligence.
Witness testimony conflicted: Tidd said area was lit, she had lights/reflectors but wore headphones and did not see the car; Kroshus said it was dark, he stopped and crept forward, did not see Tidd or bike lights, and the collision occurred without warning.
The district court instructed the jury on negligence, local ordinances, comparative fault, and (over Tidd’s objection) the sudden emergency doctrine.
The jury found Kroshus not at fault; judgment dismissed Tidd’s complaint; the court denied her motion for a new trial.
On appeal the Supreme Court of North Dakota held the sudden emergency instruction was unsupported by the evidence because no external or intervening emergency existed before the collision, and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sudden emergency instruction was warranted	Tidd: no evidence of a sudden emergency; instruction was improper and prejudicial	Kroshus: he was unexpectedly confronted with a dangerous situation he did not cause (did not see Tidd before impact) — jury should assess	Court: Instruction improper — no evidence of an emergency prior to collision; error not harmless; reverse and remand

Ebach v. Ralston, 510 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 1994) (explains contours of sudden emergency doctrine and when instruction may be given)
Tennyson v. Bandle, 181 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. 1970) (establishes that not every unexpected occurrence is a sudden emergency; jury question unless only one reasonable conclusion exists)
Scott v. Iverson, 853 P.2d 302 (Or. Ct. App. 1993) (refuses sudden emergency instruction where driver did not see bicyclist before collision and emergency was not independent of defendant’s conduct)
Gronneberg v. Hoffart, 466 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1991) (conflicting views of evidence can justify submitting sudden emergency to the jury)
Kreidt v. Burlington Northern R.R., 615 N.W.2d 153 (N.D. 2000) (cautions about use of sudden emergency instructions under comparative negligence)