## Facts

- Cheryl Kendrick was stopped at a red light in a left-turn lane at an intersection in Loveland, Colorado, during snowy and icy winter conditions.
- Holly Pippin approached the intersection in a pickup truck; when the light changed to yellow she braked, the truck slid on ice/snow, and she could not stop before the signal turned red.
- Pippin attempted a right turn to avoid entering the intersection but could not complete the turn, crossed a center median, and struck the driver’s side of Kendrick’s vehicle.
- Kendrick sued Pippin for negligence; the jury found Kendrick was injured and sustained damages but found Pippin not negligent and not a cause of Kendrick’s injuries.
- After trial, Kendrick sought a new trial based on an engineer-juror’s speed and reaction-time calculations derived from trial evidence and shared during deliberations; the trial court denied the motion.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment, including the trial court’s use of a sudden-emergency instruction, refusal of a res ipsa loquitur instruction, and denial of a new trial for juror misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether a sudden-emergency jury instruction was proper when the defendant anticipated slick, icy road conditions.
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a res ipsa loquitur instruction based on the vehicle sliding and crossing a median into a stopped car.
3. Whether an engineer-juror’s calculations using admitted evidence and professional training constituted “extraneous prejudicial information” requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the sudden-emergency instruction was erroneously given because the defendant failed to present competent evidence of a sudden or unexpected occurrence.
- The court held the trial court properly refused a res ipsa loquitur instruction because the doctrine’s elements were not established.
- The court held no new trial was warranted for juror misconduct because the juror’s calculations were based on admitted evidence and personal expertise, not outside information.

## Legal Principles

- A sudden-emergency instruction is warranted only when the proponent presents competent evidence of a sudden or unexpected occurrence not of the proponent’s own making; anticipated hazardous conditions do not qualify.
- Res ipsa loquitur requires proof by a preponderance that (1) the event ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, (2) other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated, and (3) the presumed negligence falls within the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff.
- Jurors may use their general experience and professional training to evaluate admitted evidence; deliberations cross the line when jurors introduce outside evidence or “extraneous prejudicial information” not admitted at trial.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury received an unsupported sudden-emergency instruction that could dilute the ordinary reasonable-care standard, but it otherwise upheld the trial court’s rejection of res ipsa loquitur and its refusal to grant a new trial based on an engineer-juror’s calculations drawn from trial evidence.


Kendrick v. Pippin, 252 P.3d 1052 (Colo. 2011)