Tidd v. Kroshus
Decision Date | 13 October 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 20140426.,20140426. |
Citation | 870 N.W.2d 181 |
Parties | Michelle TIDD, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Scott KROSHUS, Defendant and Appellee. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Timothy M. O'Keeffe (argued) and Tatum O. Lindbo (appeared), Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.
William P. Harrie (argued) and Sharon T. Lo (appeared), Fargo, N.D., for defendant and appellee.
[¶ 1] Michelle Tidd appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict dismissing her negligence action against Scott Kroshus arising out of a collision between Tidd's bike and Kroshus' car. Tidd also appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for a new trial, arguing the district court erred in instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. We reverse and remand, concluding under the facts presented, it was error to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine.
[¶ 2] On the evening of August 18, 2010, Tidd was riding her bike on a sidewalk in Fargo when she collided with Kroshus' car. Kroshus was entering the street from the alley when he collided with Tidd. Tidd sued Kroshus alleging Kroshus' negligence caused the collision and Tidd's bodily injuries.
[¶ 3] The parties' trial testimony differed on the details of the collision. Tidd testified the area was well-lit, she had lights on her bike, she was wearing a bright blue jacket with reflectors on it and Kroshus' car struck her bike. She testified she does not typically ride her bike at night because it is not safe to ride after dark. She testified she did not see Kroshus' car before the impact, and did not hear the car coming because she was wearing headphones while listening to her iPod.
[¶ 4] According to Kroshus, he was driving with his headlights on because the area was dark. He stopped his car in the alley as he was approaching the sidewalk. He stated the buildings on each side of the alley made it impossible to see anyone on the sidewalk. The collision occurred when he began looking to his left as he was “creeping forward to get a better look [at] the sidewalk.” He did not see Tidd on her bike before the collision, and the bike had no lights. He immediately stopped his car after the collision. He testified he traveled the alley where the collision occurred a few times every week and he normally took precautions when emerging from the alley because he knew bike riders or pedestrians could be on the sidewalk. He does not usually see bike riders at night.
[¶ 5] Over Tidd's objection, the district court instructed the jury on sudden emergency. The “sudden emergency” instruction stated:
In addition to the sudden emergency instruction, the jury was instructed on negligence, state law regarding the operation of a vehicle emerging from an alley, Fargo ordinances regarding the operation of bicycles on a sidewalk, operation of bicycles at night, evidence of compliance or non-compliance with statutes or municipal ordinances, the general care required in the operation of a motor vehicle, the duty of a person with the right-of-way, comparative fault and weight and credibility of evidence.
[¶ 6] Tidd argued the sudden emergency instruction was unnecessary because there was no evidence of a sudden emergency. The jury returned a verdict finding Kroshus was not at fault, and a judgment was entered dismissing Tidd's complaint. Tidd moved for a new trial, arguing the district court erred in instructing the jury on sudden emergency. Tidd's motion was denied.
[¶ 7] Tidd argues the district court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. This Court has summarized its standard of review for jury instructions:
Cartier v. Northwestern Elec., Inc., 2010 ND 14, ¶ 11, 777 N.W.2d 866 (quoting Harfield v. Tate, 1999 ND 166, ¶ 6, 598 N.W.2d 840 ). “On appeal, we review jury instructions as a whole, and if they correctly advise the jury of the law, they are sufficient although parts of them, standing alone, may be erroneous and insufficient.” M.M. v. Fargo Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 ND 102, ¶ 24, 783 N.W.2d 806 (quoting Flatt v. Kantak, 2004 ND 173, ¶ 23, 687 N.W.2d 208 ). If the district court commits error in its instructions, this Court decides whether the error was harmless. Rittenour v. Gibson, 2003 ND 14, ¶ 15, 656 N.W.2d 691.
[¶ 8] In Ebach v. Ralston, this Court “outlined the contours of the sudden emergency doctrine” developed in earlier cases:
510 N.W.2d 604, 609 (N.D.1994) ( ). The sudden emergency doctrine requires “a person to exercise ordinary care under emergency circumstances that are not caused by that person's own negligence.” Ebach, at 609. “[W]hether a motorist was confronted with a sudden emergency [is a jury question] unless the evidence is such that reasonable men can draw but one conclusion therefrom.” Tennyson, at 691.
[¶ 9] While discussing the sudden emergency doctrine in Tennyson, we also stated, 181 N.W.2d at 691 ; see also Ebach, 510 N.W.2d at 610 .
[¶ 10] In allowing the sudden emergency instruction here, the district court stated:
[¶ 11] In the two cases cited by the district court, Ebach and Tennyson, this Court upheld the trial courts' decisions to instruct the jury on sudden emergency. In each case, the defendant motorist unexpectedly hit a slippery spot on the road before colliding with the plaintiff's vehicle. Ebach, 510 N.W.2d at 606 ; Tennyson, 181 N.W.2d at 689. We held in both cases sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find the defendants unexpectedly encountered a sudden emergency before the accident. Ebach, at 611 (); Tennyson, at 691 () .
[¶ 12] The “sudden emergency” instruction in this case stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Anderson, 20150015.
...no instruction on it; but if the evidence admits of more than one inference, an instruction is proper.Tidd v. Kroshus, 2015 ND 248, ¶ 7, 870 N.W.2d 181 (quoting Cartier v. Northwestern Elec., Inc., 2010 ND 14, ¶ 11, 777 N.W.2d 866 ).[¶ 32] Both parties submitted proposed jury instructions. ......
-
Taszarek v. Lakeview Excavating, Inc.
...no instruction on it; but if the evidence admits of more than one inference, an instruction is proper.Tidd v. Kroshus, 2015 ND 248, ¶ 7, 870 N.W.2d 181 (quoting Cartier v. Northwestern Elec., Inc., 2010 ND 14, ¶ 11, 777 N.W.2d 866 ). “On appeal, we review jury instructions as a whole, and i......
-
McCormick, Inc. v. Fredericks
...jury of the law applicable to the case and fairly cover the claims made by both sides of the case. Tidd v. Kroshus , 2015 ND 248, ¶ 7, 870 N.W.2d 181. A district court "is not required to instruct the jury in the exact language sought by a party if the court's instructions correctly and ade......
-
Baker v. Autos, Inc.
...law applicable to the case. They should also fairly cover the claims made by both sides of the case." Tidd v. Kroshus , 2015 ND 248, ¶ 7, 870 N.W.2d 181. When the district court chooses a specific instruction, this Court is not quick to second-guess its choice. Id. This Court reviews jury i......