 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mobile Infirmary Mudical Center v. Hodgen10/31/2003
oceeded with appropriate action. The jury had not been discharged. The Court would have brought the jury back in and recharged the jury ....
"....
"The actions of [Mobile Infirmary] in approving of the court's action in allowing the verdict, and yet now taking a nearly opposite position in claiming the verdict is invalid, falls squarely within the invited error doctrine ....
"....
" ... This is the rare case where the Court made specific inquiry on the record and [Mobile Infirmary] affirmatively took a position on the record. The invited error is all the more apparent because it would have been a simple matter for this Court to give a supplemental charge that would have remedied any defect. ... Thus, while [Mobile Infirmary] is now claiming it is making some sort of substantive argument, if anything, [Mobile Infirmary] is making an attempt to place form over substance so as to prevent justice from being done."
The law is well settled that a party may not induce an error by the trial court and then attempt to win a reversal based on that error. "A party may not predicate an argument for reversal on 'invited error,' that is, 'error into which he has led or lulled the trial court.'" Atkins v. Lee, 603 So. 2d 937, 945 (Ala. 1992)(quoting Dixie Highway Express, Inc. v. Southern Ry., 286 Ala. 646, 651, 244 So. 2d 591, 595 (1971)). "That doctrine [of invited error] provides that a party may not complain of error into which he has led the court." Ex parte King, 643 So. 2d 1364, 1366 (Ala. 1993). "A party cannot win a reversal on an error that party has invited the trial court to commit." Neal v. Neal, [Ms. 1991439, September 6, 2002] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2002). See also Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Beasley, 466 So. 2d 935, 937 (Ala. 1985); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Humphries, 293 Ala. 413, 418, 304 So. 2d 573, 577 (1974).
Accordingly, Mobile Infirmary cannot, on the one hand, represent to the trial court that the jury verdict was proper, thus inducing the trial court to enter a judgment on that verdict, and then, on the other hand, argue in posttrial motions that the jury verdict was improper and that Mobile Infirmary is entitled to have a judgment rendered in its favor. Because any error committed by the trial court in entering a judgment upon the jury verdict in this case was invited by Mobile Infirmary, Mobile Infirmary's argument that it is entitled to have a judgment rendered in its favor on this basis must fail.
II.
Mobile Infirmary argues that the trial court erroneously denied its renewed motion for a JML because, it says, Hodgen failed to produce sufficient evidence of wantonness to support the jury's award of punitive damages. At trial, Hodgen alleged two factual bases for his wantonness claim against Mobile Infirmary. First, Hodgen argued that Mobile Infirmary acted wantonly in administering the digoxin to him after his heart surgery. Second, Hodgen argued that Mobile Infirmary acted wantonly in its failure to adequately train and supervise its nurses.
Our standard of review for a renewed motion for a JML is well settled:
"In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion for a JML, an appellate court uses the same standard the trial court used in ruling on the motion initially. Thus, '"we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and we determine whether the party with the burden of proof has produced sufficient evidence to require a jury determination."' Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Brown, So. 2d [1, 12] (Ala. 2001), quoting American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 624 So. 2d 1362, 1366-67 (Ala. 1993); see, also, Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Kendri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|