 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Acands Inc. v. Asner12/6/1996
re not an issue, and plaintiffs submitted that injection into the case of TLV evidence "brings a whole new ball game up ...." The court resolved the matter by saying: "I intend to tell the jury that that evidence is only as to the cross-claim and can only be considered as to the cross-claim; it can't be considered as to anything else." Plaintiffs reasserted their objections to the designations. After the jury was brought back into the courtroom, the trial court gave an instruction consistent with what it had indicated it would do. The text of the instruction is set forth in the margin. Due to the intervening Thanksgiving holiday the next trial day was Monday, November 29, when excerpts from the two depositions were read to the jury. At that time, and thereafter, any defendant adopting one or the other or both depositions as part of that defendant's case as a cross-claimant so stated to the jury, and the adopting defendant identified to the jury the specific cross-claim defendant against which the evidence was offered.
Under the limiting instruction the jury was not permitted to consider the depositions of Hazard and of Dr. Schepers as evidence bearing on the original claim of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Consequently, the deposition evidence did not render non-prejudicial to the defendants the erroneous ruling on the motion in limine.
For these reasons Appellees' Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Page 1 2 3 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|