Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialverdictmotionjury instructions
plaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialverdictmotionjury instructions

Related Cases

Fay v. Humane Society of United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 184396
View Case »
Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695
View Case »
People v. Goad, 421 Mich. 20, 364 N.W.2d 584
View Case »
Ex parte Blake, 469 So.2d 1301
View Case »
People v. Fagalilo, 123 Cal.App.3d 524, 176 Cal.Rptr. 698
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bachicha v. Lewis, 105 N.M. 726, 737 P.2d 85, 1987 -NMCA- 053

Facts

Plaintiff Theresa Bachicha was stopped at a red light when defendant Jo Reynolds, wearing new shoes, lost control of her vehicle and collided with the rear of Bachicha's car. Although there was no significant damage to the plaintiffs' vehicle, Bachicha experienced some minor injuries. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was liable for the accident, while the defendant argued that her foot slipping off the brake was an unexpected incident.

Plaintiff, Theresa Bachicha, was stopped behind another vehicle for a red traffic signal. Defendant, who was proceeding in the same direction, testified she was wearing new shoes and that her foot slipped off the brake pedal when she depressed it, causing her to run into the rear bumper of plaintiffs' car.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict on liability and in giving jury instructions that included sudden emergency and excuse or justification language?

We understand plaintiffs' issues to be as follows. They claim the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict on the question of liability made at the close of defendant's case, and in refusing to grant them a judgment N.O.V. made after the jury returned a verdict for defendant.

Rule

A party is entitled to jury instructions that accurately reflect the law and the evidence presented. Instructions that inject false issues into the case can constitute reversible error.

A party is entitled to jury instructions that accurately reflect the law and the evidence presented. Instructions that inject false issues into the case can constitute reversible error.

Analysis

The court found that the trial court's instructions on sudden emergency and excuse or justification were inappropriate given the circumstances of the case. The defendant's foot slipping off the brake was not considered a force beyond her control, and the evidence did not support the need for such instructions. The court concluded that the improper instructions could have influenced the jury's verdict.

The court found that the trial court's instructions on sudden emergency and excuse or justification were inappropriate given the circumstances of the case. The defendant's foot slipping off the brake was not considered a force beyond her control, and the evidence did not support the need for such instructions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the jury's verdict could not be upheld due to the improper jury instructions.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the jury's verdict could not be upheld due to the improper jury instructions.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal as the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant and ordered a new trial.

The plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal as the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant and ordered a new trial.

You must be