 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Renfro v. Black6/13/1990
and there better be a good faith basis-
"The Court: Wait. what I want you to do is ask him what you think he has to gain * * *
"Q: Doctor, in July of 1983, the value of your 20,000 shares of stock was $27.00 a share."
Defendant's counsel objected to this line of questioning, alleging the purpose was to show that the price of the stock decreased after July 1983, inferring sales decreased, thereby making another inference that doctors no longer perform the procedure as frequently as they used to. Plaintiffs' counsel asserted that the sole purpose was to show the witness's interest in defendant company. The trial court permitted plaintiffs' counsel to proffer the evidence:
"[Plaintiffs' counsel]: I expect the evidence will be that in July of 1983 as is shown by the records of the company that the value of the stock was $23.00 or $27.25. That is as of the date that I took the Doctor's deposition which was within this past year, the value of the stock was $3.00 a share now. I expect that the testimony, well, I think that we can establish that if the defense gets a verdict that will have a very favorable effect on the value of the stock. That's true.
"THE COURT: * * * First of all, the fact that there's insurance means that there * * * would not be a direct correlation anyway. * * * articularly if there's another drug now on the marketplace, who knows if it's the result of a verdict or * * * competition, * * * or because they now found it is not effective. I think the probative value and the prejudice far outweigh the probative value of that evidence and we'll not go into that. As to the credibility of the Doctor based upon his interest you may inquire of his $20,000.00 [shares]. * * * He's already talked about the amount of money he has received in the past seven years plus the amount of money that he gains from the defendant. * * *"
The trial court had previously ruled on a motion in limine that plaintiffs could not introduce evidence of events that occurred after Renfro's December 1983 injury . It is apparent to us that plaintiffs' purpose for introducing the proffered testimony was to place before the jury facts and events that transpired after Renfro's accident. We are not persuaded that this evidence is material or relevant to the presentation of plaintiffs'
negligence claims, inadequate warning claim or their strict liability cause of action. See Evid R. 401 and 403(B).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
HOLMES, WRIGHT and RESNICK, JJ., concur.
SWEENEY and DOUGLAS, JJ., dissent.
BROWN, J., dissents with opinion.
BROWN, J., dissenting. I believe that the majority has properly analyzed those propositions of law contained in Sections I and IV of its opinion. However, I think the trial judge committed error in restricting the plaintiffs' proof with respect to those matters discussed in Sections II and III. I do not so much fault the legal pronouncements made by the majority, as I do the majority's willingness (on this record) to disregard errors by invoking the doctrines of "judicial discretion" and "waiver."
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|