Cheryl A. Kendrick v. Holly L. Pippin

Summary

Justice Martinez concurred in the judgment reversing the court of appeals but disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the evidence did not support a res ipsa loquitur instruction. The concurrence reasoned that the totality of the circumstances, including the driver's speed, sudden illegal turn, and crash over a median into a lawfully stopped vehicle, could satisfy all three res ipsa elements. Justice Eid, dissenting, would have affirmed the court of appeals because general awareness of icy conditions did not eliminate a sudden emergency and the instruction did not warrant a new trial.