Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05117/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

, .... 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Uoired Scaces Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

I . 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

SHIRLEY THOMPSON, next of kin to ) 

BARBARA SUE RUTLEDGE, deceased, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROY ZBINDEN, an individual; YELLOW ) 

FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., a foreign ) 

corporation, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5117 

(D.C. No. 89-C-165-C) 

( N. D. Okla . ) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff Shirley Thompson filed this diversity action, 

governed by Illinois law, in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Oklahoma seeking to recover damages for 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5117 Document: 010110031883 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 1 
the death of Barbara Sue Rutledge, which occurred during a 

collision in Illinois between a car driven by Rutledge and a 

truck. Named as defendants were the driver of the truck, Roy 

Zbinden, and the owner of the truck, Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. 

A jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants. Plaintiff 

appeals raising two arguments which focus on the sudden emergency 

instruction offered by the district court. 

First, plaintiff argues that the district court erred by 

instructing on the sudden emergency issue primarily because the 

Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (I.P.I.) recommend no such 

instruction be given. Plaintiff, however, did not make a timely 

objection at trial raising this precise issue. Plaintiff only 

objected to the instruction as not supported by the evidence. Our 

review, therefore, is limited to whether the district court's 

failure to observe the I.P.I.'s recommendation rises to the level 

of plain error. See Palmer v. Krueger, 897 F.2d 1529, 1532-33 

(10th Cir. 1990) . We find no plain error. The instruction was in 

accord with Illinois case law, and it is unlikely that the 

instruction misled the jury. See Turner v. Roesner, 193 

Ill. App. 3d. 482, 549 N. E. 2d 1287, 1291 (2d. Dist. 1990); 

McCullough's Estate v. McTavish, 62 Ill. App. 3d. 1041, 379 N.E.2d 

890, 895 (2d. Dist. 1978). 

Plaintiff next renews her argument made below that there was 

no basis for a sudden emergency instruction because the evidence 

introduced at trial did not establish a sudden perilous situation. 

Our review is limited to whether there was some evidence in the 

record to support the instruction. 

2 

Deming v. Montgomery, 180 

Appellate Case: 90-5117 Document: 010110031883 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 2 
Ill. App. 3d 527, 536 N.E.2d 150, 154 (5th Dist. 1989). We find 

sufficient evidence to support the notion that the accident in 

this case could have occurred due to a sudden emergency without 

negligence by defendant Zbinden. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5117 Document: 010110031883 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 3