 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Santiago v. Walker9/15/1999
ORDER
This 15th day of September 1999, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it appears to the Court as follows:
(1) This is an appeal from an award of damages for loss of consortium arising from a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff, Irvin C. Walker ("Walker"), together with his wife, originally brought an action against the defendant-appellant, Reynaldo L. Santiago, M.D. ("Santiago), for medical malpractice. Santiago raised the defense, inter alia, of the statute of limitations. The Superior Court ruled, however, that this was a question of fact. In an interlocutory appeal, this Court upheld the trial court's ruling, Smith v. Wallace, Del. Supr., 701 A.2d 86 (1997), and remanded the matter for trial.
(2) Prior to trial, Santiago settled with the plaintiff's wife and proceeded to trial only on the claim involving plaintiff's loss of consortium. At trial, the parties entered into a stipulation in which Santiago admitted to sexual misconduct with respect to plaintiff's wife. In effect, the jury was requested to decide only causation, i.e., what, if any, damages plaintiff suffered, in the form of loss of consortium, by reason of Santiago's conduct. Santiago did not request a jury charge regarding the statute of limitations.
(3) The Superior Court concluded that defendant's claim regarding the defense of statute of limitations was waived by failure to request that the issue be posed to the jury as a factual issue at trial. We conclude that the Superior Court ruled correctly in this regard. Accordingly, we deem the defense of statute of limitations to have been waived by Santiago's inaction at trial.
(4) Santiago also alleges that the jury's award of compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000 was excessive. The jury has broad discretion in determining the amount of damages. Larrimore v. Homeopathic Hosp. Ass'n. of Del., Del. Super., 176 A.2d 362, 369 (1961). Given the unusual circumstances of this case and the egregious nature of Santiago's conduct as a medical professional, we find no basis to disturb the exercise of the jury's discretion. Accordingly, the jury's verdict as to compensatory damages is sustained.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is,
AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
|