 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mills v. Nahabedian6/11/2003
of plaintiff's experts, the trial justice concluded that plaintiff could not establish a causal relationship between the carpet and any personal injuries that she may have suffered. We already have reviewed and affirmed the trial justice's ruling on that issue and thus, we need not address it here. See Mills v. State Sales, Inc., No. 2001-82-A. (R.I., filed June 10, 2003).
Because plaintiff was unable to establish a causal relationship between the carpet and her physical injuries, the trial justice prohibited plaintiff's witnesses from mentioning toxins or making reference to the Department of Environmental Management. She further prohibited plaintiff's witnesses from mentioning any injuries they allegedly suffered from exposure to any emissions from the carpet. In light of plaintiff's inability to establish a causal connection between the carpet and any physical injuries, the trial justice properly limited the testimony as she did.
The plaintiff also argues that the trial justice erred in refusing to permit plaintiff to present evidence of financial losses resulting from the alleged constructive eviction. Because the jury found in defendant's favor, however, any evidence of damages is of no significance.
At oral argument, plaintiff additionally asserted that the trial justice erred by admitting a document showing that she had been suspended from the practice of medicine. However, plaintiff failed to object to the document when it was admitted. Thus, she has waived any challenge to the propriety of that evidence. See Ridgewood Homeowners Association, 813 A.2d at 977.
Finally, the plaintiff alleges that the trial justice demonstrated prejudice against her throughout the trial. We previously have held that, in order to affirmatively establish a trial justice's personal bias or prejudice against a litigant, that party must show that such bias or prejudice is because of a "preconceived or settled opinion of a character calculated to impair impartiality seriously and sway judgment." Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 118 R.I. 608, 621, 375 A.2d 911, 917 (1977). Mere criticism is not sufficient. Id. at 622, 375 A.2d at 918. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the plaintiff has not met her burden. All the trial justice's rulings throughout the proceedings were well-reasoned, supported by the facts, and in accordance with the law. Although it is true that the trial justice commented that plaintiff did not present her case in a way that "a good attorney would have" and that she, acting pro se, "did have very good representation," those criticisms are insufficient to establish bias. See id.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiff's appeal is denied and dismissed. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The papers in the case may be returned to the Superior Court.
Justice Flaherty did not participate.
|