 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Penn Harris Madison School Corp. v. Howard8/16/2005
Co., 37 P.3d 783, 789 (Okla. 2001), the court recognized that a certified public accountant's duty to his client, "while not coterminous with those of lawyers and doctors, is certainly comparable . . . . The Court is mindful of the enhanced obligations and responsibilities owed to the public by a person who dons the mantle of a professional."
In essence, Howard invites us to analogize a physician's duty to his patients and a certified public accountant's duty to his clients with a school's duty to its students. But Howard ignores the fundamental difference between the two types of relationships. Physicians and certified public accountants have specialized knowledge upon which their patients and clients are generally entitled to rely. But a school does not render a service for its students comparable to the specialized fields of medicine and accounting. Rather, a school merely has a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of its students. See Miller, 308 N.E.2d at 706.
We conclude that Howard's proffered instruction No. 6 is not an accurate statement of Indiana law. As such, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to give the instruction.
Conclusion
The trial court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury regarding the standard of care attributable to Howard and the last clear chance doctrine. We reverse and remand for a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to give Howard's proffered instruction No. 6.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SULLIVAN, J., and RILEY, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|