 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company8/28/2001
at-fault defendant not only extends Minnesota law but also conflicts with existing caselaw. Id. at 391-92 (citation omitted).
The Morlocks argue that the instruction at issue does in fact correctly state Minnesota law, but the Minnesota caselaw and foreign precedents on which the Morlocks rely, were considered and rejected by the Blatz court. We accede to the discussion in Blatz and hold that the instruction given in this case misstated Minnesota law.
The Morlocks claim that even if the district court gave an erroneous instruction, appellant nevertheless is not entitled to a new trial. They argue that the district court's instruction "neither destroyed the substantial correctness of the charge nor created substantial prejudice on a vital issue." To support this conclusion, they suggest that the jury must have decided that Morlock had no pre-existing injuries and to the extent that he did, those injuries were asymptomatic prior to the 1996 accident.
The evidence adduced at trial, however, does not support the Morlocks' view. The evidence demonstrated that Morlock has experienced intermittently recurring back pain for several decades. Guardian's expert offered the opinion—based on Morlock's medical records—that many of Morlock's current complaints stemmed from pre-existing medical conditions related to degeneration of the skeletal system, back, and neck. Morlock's own expert acknowledged that some of Morlock's current complaints were likely caused by pre-existing medical conditions rather than the 1996 accident. Such evidence contradicts the proposition that Morlock had no pre-existing injuries or that such injuries were asymptomatic prior to the 1996 accident.
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have attributed some of Morlock's present injuries and concomitant damages to his recurring back problems; yet the jury may have been unable to separate the damages caused by the recurring injuries from the injuries caused by the 1996 accident. If so, it is entirely possible, if not probable, that the jury used the district court's erroneous instruction to conclude that Guardian was liable for all of Morlock's damages, notwithstanding that not all of those damages were due to the 1996 accident. Because the erroneous instruction may have influenced the jury and because we cannot determine with certainty whether it did, a new trial is warranted on the Morlocks' claims. See Apache Plaza, 456 N.W.2d at 733 ("If an instruction is erroneous and an appellate court is unable to determine whether the error affected the jury, a new trial should be granted.").
Guardian also points out that Judy Morlock's claim for loss of consortium derives from her husband's right to recover from appellant. See, e.g., Huffer v. Kozitzka, 375 N.W.2d 480, 482 (Minn. 1985). Because Judy Morlock's claim is inextricably linked to her husband's, the error in the instructions for Morlock's claim also affects his wife's claim. Thus, we hold that a new trial is warranted for Judy Morlock's claim as well.
2. Remittitur
Because we hold that Guardian is entitled to a new trial, we do not reach the remittitur issue.
DECISION
The district court's instruction concerning non-separable, pre-existing medical conditions constituted prejudicial error requiring a new trial as to both respondents' claims.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|