 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pittock v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ohio5/14/1998
COMMUNICATE
Appellants' sixth assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT ALLOWING GERALD PITTOCK TO TESTIFY AND IN NOT ALLOWING A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW ROBERTA PITTOCK COMMUNICATES WITH GERALD PITTOCK AS EVIDENCE OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF HIS INJURIES.
Appellants contend that their inability to present a demonstration of how Roberta Pittock communicates with her husband constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appellants argue that such a demonstration should have been admissible as relevant and probative of the damages and injury suffered by Mr. Pittock.
A trial court is vested with the sound discretion to rule on the admission or exclusion of evidence based on relevance. Nielsen v. Meeker (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 448, 450. A trial court's evidentiary rulings will not be reversed unless that discretion has clearly been abused. Id.An abuse of discretion implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219.
Appellants were able to demonstrate Mr. Pittock's communicative abilities during the testimony of the neurologist, Dr. Howard Tucker. T. at 532-535. The court reasonably could have found further testimony or demonstration on this issue to be cumulative. In any event, we do not find the court's ruling to be unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219. We therefore find no abuse of discretion, and appellants' sixth assignment of error is overruled.
All of appellants' assignments of error having found to be without merit, the jury's verdict below 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.
JOSEPH J. NAHRA, P.J. and TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J. CONCUR
JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|