 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bayless v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center2/28/2003
r issue was neither raised by counsel nor preserved for review by a timely objection. See Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 103(a)(1). Bayless urges to to review the issue under the authority of Mitchell v. Hadl, Ky., 816 S.W.2d 183 (1991), but we decline to do so.
Bayless next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to submit his parents' claim for loss of parental consortium to the jury. His argument is without merit because such a claim in cases like this is not recognized under Kentucky law. See Humana of Kentucky, Inc. v. McKee, Ky. App., 834 S.W.2d 711, 725 (1992).
Bayless's next argument is that the trial court erred in failing to provide the jury with meaningful instructions. He asserts that there were "no jury instructions which were of assistance in defining terms or any meaningful legal burdens for the jury to use." He maintains that the instructions gave the jury "no legal direction at all."
Bayless's arguments are again without merit. Although he complains that the jury instructions did not instruct on the burden of proof, Kentucky law has long held that "the jury should not be told specifically that the burden of proof is on one party or the other. It has been held enough that the instructions be so framed as to appropriately indicate which litigant has the affirmative burden of persuasion." Burns v. Capitol Beverage Co., Ky., 472 S.W.2d 510, 511 (1971). The instructions given by the trial court to the jury in this case properly indicated that Bayless had the affirmative burden of persuasion.
Although Bayless argues that the instructions gave the jury "no legal direction at all," he does not further elaborate. Presumably, he means that the instructions were not sufficiently detailed and specific. Under Kentucky law, however, jury instructions "should provide only the bare bones, which can be fleshed out by counsel in their closing arguments if they so desire." Cox v. Cooper, Ky., 510 S.W.2d 530, 535 (1974).
In a like manner, Bayless complains that the jury instructions "were of no assistance in defining terms." We decline to address this argument since he did not state which term or terms he believed the court should have defined in the instructions.
Finally, Bayless argues that he is entitled to a new trial on all issues. Because we have discerned no error, it is not appropriate to vacate or reverse the judgment and grant a new trial.
The judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|