 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hildebrand v. Brod12/14/2004
lay in disclosure, the questionable foundation for the testimony, and the unnecessary expert opinion being offered, the trial court ruling is affirmed.
III. Jury Instruction
The trial court instructed the jury on reasonable care, negligence, proximate cause, and the landlord's duty to repair, but did not give a negligence per se instruction. Although appellant does not specifically identify the instruction that she thought should have been given, the record indicates that appellant requested but was denied instructions that (1) a principal is responsible for an agent's failure to repair; (2) appellant may not be found negligent because she had no duty; and (3) appellant may not be found negligent unless there was a safer route available to her.
Trial courts are allowed considerable latitude in selecting the language in jury instructions. Alhom v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn. 1986). Jury instructions must be viewed in their entirety to determine whether they fairly explain the law of the case. State v. Flores, 418 N.W.2d 150, 155 (Minn. 1988). This court will not reverse a trial court's decision unless the instructions constituted an abuse of discretion. See id. An appellate court should view the instructions as far as possible from the standpoint of the total impact or impression upon the jury. Lieberman v. Korsh, 264 Minn. 234, 240, 119 N.W.2d 180, 184 (1962). If the instruction destroys the substantial correctness of the charge as a whole, causes a miscarriage of justice, or results in substantial prejudice, the error requires a new trial. Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229, 214 N.W.2d 672, 676 (1974).
Reading the instructions as a whole and keeping in mind their total impact on the jury, this court cannot say that the instructions were insufficient or misstated the law. First, the verdict shows that the jury found both parties negligent. Second, the jury determined respondent's actions were not the proximate cause of the fall. Third, instructing the jury that the missing handrail constituted negligence or that appellant could not be found negligent misstates the law. And, fourth, the record contains no evidence that respondent had knowledge of protruding nails. Therefore, the trial court properly exercised its discretion.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|