 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pleasant v. EMSA Correctional Care8/31/2004
ctional facility." Appellant maintained that the interrogatory "suggest to the jury that inmates are in jail for a reason, that they are not entitled to the same standard of nursing care and, in turn, inmate 'nurse advocates' should not be judged by the light of the 'ordinary care' jury instruction given to them by the Court." (Appellant's Brief, at 13.)
.Viewed in its totality, the interrogatory quoted supra accurately set forth the law. Appellant has failed to show that the interrogatory was prejudicial and affected her substantial rights. As such, the trial court did not err in submitting EMSA's proposed interrogatory to the jury. Appellant's third assignment of error lacks merit and is not well-taken.
.For the foregoing reasons, appellant's three assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER, J., concurs.
BROWN, J., concurs separately.
BROWN, J., concurring separately.
.I agree with the majority that appellant has failed to show prejudice under her third assignment of error. The charge to the jury gave the jury proper guidance. However, I do no agree that the jury interrogatory accurately set forth the proper standard of care to be followed by the EMSA nurses. The interrogatory implied a different standard of care for EMSA nurses than those practicing outside of a prison. Nevertheless, the interrogatory was not an instruction of law. Any prejudice was negated by the proper charge given to the jury. (Oct. 9, 2003 Tr. 17.)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|