 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pesek v. University Neurologists Assn.12/11/1997
conduct occurs. Snyder, supra. Unfortunately, this comment may have encouraged the jurors to speculate on the amount of the settlement, which they had been told not to do.
Nonetheless, in this instance, we do not find counsel's comment to be so egregious and prejudicial that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to admonish counsel and take curative action. Even so, the jury was properly instructed to consider only the evidence in the case and were further instructed that closing argument of counsel does not constitute evidence. A presumption exists that the jury follows the instructions given by the trial court. Pang v. Minch (1990) 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 195. Thus, we must presume that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the jury disregarded the comments of appellees' counsel when determining the liability of appellees for medical malpractice. Accordingly, we find that appellants' third assignment of error is not well taken.
As this court has stated, before a judgment will not be reversed on the grounds of misconduct in closing argument unless the circumstances are of such reprehensible and heinous nature as to constitute prejudice. Plavcan v. Longo (July 3, 1980), Cuyahoga App. No. 39964[, unreported]." Hitson v. City of Cleveland, supra. Appellants, here, have failed to demonstrate to this court that their substantial rights were violated by comments made by appellees' counsel during closing argument. Upon a review of the record before us, even though some of the remarks made by counsel may have been objectionable, counsel did not object. The jury was properly instructed not to consider remarks made during closing argument as evidence in the case, and there has been no demonstration of error prejudicial to appellants. Thus, in the absence of showing of prejudicial error, we can only conclude any errors occurring during closing argument were harmless.
Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants their costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JAMES M. PORTER, P.J. and JOSEPH J. NAHRA, J. CONCUR
JUDGE TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE
|