Bedor v. Johnson

Colorado Supreme Court · 2013 · Torts

TortsNegligenceJury InstructionsSudden Emergency Doctrinenegligencesudden emergencyjury instructionreasonable care under the circumstances

Facts

Bedor was driving eastbound near Telluride when Johnson's westbound vehicle crossed the center line, spun out, and slid into Bedor's car. Investigation showed Johnson lost control after hitting an icy patch of snow on the road. Testimony established that ice regularly formed there in winter and that Johnson knew of the possibility of ice in that area because he drove that stretch regularly. There was also conflicting evidence about whether Johnson was speeding, intoxicated, or both when he lost control.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine when Johnson lost control of his car in winter conditions and collided with Bedor? More broadly, should Colorado courts continue giving a separate sudden emergency instruction in negligence cases at all?

Rule

A sudden emergency instruction was formerly proper only if requested and supported by competent evidence showing both a sudden emergency and that the requesting party did not cause it; the cases also indicated the instruction fit where the party took deliberate action in response to the emergency. This case holds that the instruction should no longer be given in Colorado negligence cases because its potential to mislead the jury greatly outweighs its minimal utility. The ordinary negligence standard of reasonable care under the same or similar circumstances sufficiently covers emergency conditions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Denver, Lena Ortiz sued Paul Mercer after Paul swerved to avoid a mattress that had fallen from a truck and struck Lena's car. At trial in Colorado, Paul requested a separate jury instruction stating that a person confronted with a sudden emergency is not chargeable with negligence if he acted as a reasonably careful person would under the same or similar circumstances.

How should the trial judge rule on Paul's request?

Explanation. Colorado abolished the sudden emergency instruction in negligence cases. Even where the facts involve an asserted emergency and a split-second response, the jury should assess negligence under the ordinary standard of reasonable care under the same or similar circumstances. A separate instruction should not be given.