## Facts

- Richard Bedor drove eastbound near Telluride, Colorado, when Michael Johnson’s westbound vehicle crossed the center line and collided with Bedor’s vehicle.
- Johnson lost control after hitting an icy patch in his lane; a police officer testified an ice patch regularly forms there in winter.
- Johnson acknowledged he had previously encountered that ice patch and was aware ice might be present that morning.
- The parties presented conflicting evidence about whether Johnson was speeding, intoxicated, or both at the time he lost control.
- Bedor sued Johnson for negligence arising from the collision and resulting injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving a sudden emergency jury instruction based on Johnson’s loss of control on a recurring icy patch.
2. Whether Colorado courts should continue to use the sudden emergency instruction in negligence cases.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming the defense verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held the trial court abused its discretion by giving the sudden emergency instruction because competent evidence did not support it.
- The Court abolished the sudden emergency doctrine for future negligence cases and directed that the instruction no longer be given.

## Legal Principles

- A sudden emergency instruction is improper absent competent evidence of a qualifying emergency not created by the defendant and evidence that the defendant confronted the peril in a way that calls for evaluation of a responsive choice under the circumstances.
- Common or reasonably anticipated winter road conditions, particularly where the driver is aware of recurring ice, do not constitute a “sudden emergency” warranting a special instruction.
- Standard negligence instructions already require juries to assess conduct by the reasonable-person standard “under the same or similar circumstances,” which includes unexpected events and time pressure; a separate sudden-emergency instruction is unnecessary and risks implying a different standard of care.
- Because the instruction’s tendency to mislead outweighs its limited utility, Colorado trial courts must not give a sudden emergency instruction in negligence cases going forward.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the evidence did not justify a sudden-emergency instruction where the defendant lost control on a known, recurring ice patch, and it prospectively eliminated the sudden emergency instruction from Colorado negligence cases as duplicative and misleading.


Bedor v. Johnson, 292 P.3d 924 (Colo. 2013)