Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

At trial, a jury found that Defendant Holly Pippin was not negligent in causing an accident in which her car hit that of the Plaintiff, Cheryl Kendrick. The main issue at trial was whether the driving conditions on the day of the accident were âexpected.â Driving conditions were icy, and Ms. Pippin testified that she knew it had been raining the night before to cause potentially icy roads the next morning. Ms. Kendrick challenged Ms. Pippinâs argument that the icy roads were âunexpected,â therefore her attempt to avoid hitting Ms. Kendrickâs car was actually just negligent driving. Ms. Kendrick appealed to the Court of Appeals, claiming the trial court made three mistakes: (1) the court should have instructed the jury to consider a âsudden emergency;â (2) that it should not have instructed the jury on âres ipsa loquitur;â and (3) there should have been a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct. The Supreme Court reviewed the lower courts' decisions, and agreed with the appellate court on two of the three issues presented. The Court held that Ms. Pippin failed to present evidence that she was confronted with a âsudden emergencyâ from the road conditions. The Court agreed with the appellate court's dismissal of the jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur. The Court did not find the allegation of juror misconduct credible. The Court therefore reversed the appellate courtâs decision and remanded the case for a new trial.