when damages were sought from Baker, the driver of the vehicle that was blocking the roadway. Although the instruction was erroneous, the trial justice also correctly charged that if there was “conflicting evidence!,] from which different conclusions as to [Morris’s] negligence may reasonably be drawn or which establishes that [Morris] was not negligent, then the presumption that [Morris] was negligent becomes inoperable and has no further effect.” Our careful review of the record discloses that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to overcome the rebut-table presumption created by the rear-end collision instruction. We are satisfied that the error was harmless because it was not so far removed from the facts that it prejudiced plaintiffs’ case. See Contois, 865 A.2d at 1028 (<HOLDING>). Sudden Emergency Doctrine The trial justice
holding that although there was no evidence supporting an instruction on intervening cause instructing the jury on intervening cause amounted to harmless error because the instruction was not so far removed from the facts as to constitute reversible error holding that in reviewing a jury instruction this court must review the entire instruction and look at all the evidence on the record to determine whether there was error and whether that error prejudiced the complaining party holding it was reversible error to give the jury a permissive inference instruction on possession of a controlled substance holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given