Cheryl A. Kendrick v. Holly L. Pippin — Eid, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Eid, dissenting, agreed that the trial court properly refused a res ipsa loquitur instruction and properly denied a new trial based on jury misconduct, but disagreed that the sudden-emergency instruction warranted a new trial. The dissent reasoned that general awareness of possible icy conditions does not preclude an unexpected emergency at a particular intersection and that the instruction merely clarified the reasonable-person standard. Justice Martinez, concurring in the judgment, would also have reversed because the trial court should have given a res ipsa loquitur instruction.