Court: Potential to Mislead Jurors Outweighs Minimal Utility
The Colorado Supreme Court abolished the state's "Sudden Emergency Doctrine," in response to a decision rendered by an appellate court regarding an auto accident negligence case from Telluride dating back to 2004.
Richard Bedor was injured in an auto accident when Michael Johnson slid into him on an icy road outside Telluride nearly 10 years ago. Bedor filed a suit against Johnson, and when the case went to trial the jury was read the contentious Sudden Emergency Doctrine at Johnson's request, which the Supreme Court now says has a strong likelihood of misleading jurors, and that it may have been confusing specifically to jurors in this case.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Johnson, finding that Johnson was not negligent despite losing control on a sheet of ice and causing Bedor's injuries.
Bedor then appealed the verdict, but the appellate court agreed with the jury saying that the court's reading of the doctrine was valid because evidence at the trial indicated that Johnson was presented with a sudden or unexpected emergency, the ice patch.
Finally, Bedor petitioned to the Colorado Supreme Court, asking if "the court of appeals erred in holding that a driver who loses control of a vehicle in winter driving conditions, crosses over into the lane of oncoming traffic, and collides with plaintiff’s vehicle is entitled to a ‘sudden emergency’ instruction.” After review, the court overturned the previous appellate court ruling and agreed to abolish the doctrine, stating that "the doctrine's potential to mislead the jury greatly outweighs its minimal utility."
Finally, Bedor petitioned to the Colorado Supreme Court, asking if "the court of appeals erred in holding that a driver who loses control of a vehicle in winter driving conditions, crosses over into the lane of oncoming traffic, and collides with plaintiff’s vehicle is entitled to a ‘sudden emergency’ instruction.” After review, the court overturned the previous appellate court ruling and agreed to abolish the doctrine, stating that "the doctrine's potential to mislead the jury greatly outweighs its minimal utility."
The doctrine itself reads: “A person who, through no fault of his or her own, is placed in a sudden emergency is not chargeable with negligence if the person exercises that degree of care that a reasonably careful person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.”
If you are injured in a car accident by no fault of your own, you need to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney. Call The Law Offices of Robert Paysinger, P.C. today for a free initial consultation. We help injured people - it's all we do!
Sources: Colorado Court Abolishes Accident Emergency Rule, No. 10SC65, Bedor v. Johnson – Negligence – Sudden Emergency Doctrine, Colorado Supreme Court Abolishes Sudden Emergency Doctrine Defense
If you are injured in a car accident by no fault of your own, you need to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney. Call The Law Offices of Robert Paysinger, P.C. today for a free initial consultation. We help injured people - it's all we do!
Sources: Colorado Court Abolishes Accident Emergency Rule, No. 10SC65, Bedor v. Johnson – Negligence – Sudden Emergency Doctrine, Colorado Supreme Court Abolishes Sudden Emergency Doctrine Defense
No comments:
Post a Comment