 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stant v. Lin3/13/2002
use of discretion implies an attitude of the trial court that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. A decision is unreasonable if no sound reasoning process would support the decision.
The purpose of an interrogatory is to "`test the jury's thinking in resolving an ultimate issue so as not to conflict with its verdict.'" Moreover, proper jury interrogatories must address determinative issues; in other words, those issues which when decided will definitely settle the entire controversy between the parties.
Medical malpractice cases are nothing more than negligence actions against medical professionals; thus, one determinative issue the jury must find for liability to attach is whether the medical professional was negligent. While a fundamental issue in all negligence cases is whether the defendant breached the standard of care, we find that based upon the trial court's instructions to the jury, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to reference the standard of care in the jury interrogatories.
The trial court determined that the question of whether Dr. Lin was negligent was the ultimate issue to be decided and that the instructions to the jury would amply define the requisite standard of care that the jury would need to base its decision. Notably, the trial court reiterated during its instructions to the jury the importance of the standard of care by instructing the following:
The existence of a physician/patient relationship places on the physician the duty to act as would a physician of ordinary care, skill, and diligence under the same or similar conditions or circumstances. The standard of care is to do those things which such a physician would do and to refrain from doing those things which such a physician would not do.
If you find by a greater weight of the evidence that either defendant failed to use that standard of care then you may find that he was negligent. I'm going to read that again. If you find by the greater weight of the evidence that defendant failed to use that standard of care then you find that he was negligent.
It is axiomatic that a presumption always exists that the jury has followed the instructions given to it by the trial court. Moreover, inasmuch as the trial court instructed the jury on the applicable standard of care, the omission of a reference to the standard of care in the jury interrogatory would not have prevented the jury from understanding that Dr. Lin's divergence from the applicable standard was a necessary precursor to a finding of negligence. Civ.R. 49(B), which applies to jury interrogatories, further buttresses this by stating that " he court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury * * * to * * * answer * * * the interrogatories and to render a general verdict." Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting Dr. Lin's interrogatory to the jury, and Appellant's assignment of error is hereby overruled.
Having found no error prejudicial to Appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BRYANT and HADLEY, J.J., concur.
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|