Bremner v. Charles11/22/1991
SUPREME COURT OF OREGON
SC S37713, S37668, S37674
1991.OR.40235 ; 821 P.2d 1080; 312 Or. 274
November 22, 1991
ADAM CHARLES BREMNER, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM DEBORAH A. BREMNER, DEBORAH A. BREMNER AND BRIAN G. BREMNER, RESPONDENTS ON REVIEW,
v.
ELLEN CHARLES, M.D., JOSEPH H. DIEHL, M.D., AND PENDLETON COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, PETITIONERS ON REVIEW
On review from the Court of Appeals. CC No. 86-163; CA No. A45607.
Jeffrey S. Eden, of Cooney, Moscato & Crew, P.C., Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review Ellen Charles, M.D.
Mildred J. Carmack, of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review Joseph H. Diehl, M.D.
Lindsey H. Hughes, of Hallmark, Keating & Abbott, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review Pendleton Community Memorial Hospital.
Jossi Davidson, of Gracey & Davidson, Silverton, argued the cause and filed the response brief for respondents on review.
In Banc. Unis, J.
Unis
In this medical negligence case, we are asked to resolve two issues: first, whether the trial court erred in ordering a bifurcated trial on the issues of liability and damages; and, second, whether the trial court erred when it prohibited plaintiff Adam, a brain-damaged child who was then three years old, from being in the courtroom for a brief appearance during the liability phase of the trial.
Adam could not comprehend the proceedings, meaningfully participate in them, or assist his lawyers. He was represented by his mother as guardian ad litem. As Adam's guardian ad litem and on her own behalf, Adam's mother filed a complaint alleging negligence of three defendants who were involved in different stages of mother's pregnancy and Adam's birth. Those defendants are Dr. Charles, mother's obstetrician during her pregnancy with Adam; Dr. Diehl, who attended mother during her labor and delivery; and Pendleton Community Memorial Hospital, where Adam was delivered. Plaintiffs alleged that Adam suffered permanent brain damage as a result of defendants' negligence. According to the complaint, Adam will continue to suffer mental retardation, seizures, inability to control his limbs, and other bodily dysfunctions.
Several weeks before trial, the parties attended an informal meeting to discuss, among other things, evidentiary stipulations. During the course of that meeting, plaintiffs advised defendants that they hoped to conclude their case in chief with one week of testimony. Defendants scheduled their own witnesses based on this tentative plan. On the morning of trial in Pendleton, plaintiffs advised defendants and the trial court that plaintiffs would require "an extra day or maybe a day-and-a-half" beyond their original estimate to present their case in chief. Plaintiffs submitted to defendants and to the trial court a list of witnesses whom plaintiffs intended to call, identifying each witness as either a "liability" or a "damages" witness.
On being advised that plaintiffs would require additional time, defendants moved to bifurcate the trial and to
allow the parties first to try the liability portion of the case and then, if necessary, to try the matter of damages. Defendants contended that bifurcation would enable the parties to adhere to the original schedule so that their witnesses would not ne
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|