 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Claar v. Munk10/17/2005
erself testified that there are several theories as to the cause of SIDS. However, she testified that she did not believe they were accurate. Given this evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Norton for being scientifically unreliable. The first assignment of error is overruled.
{ } In the second assignment of error Claar claims that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict. A motion for a directed verdict challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, not the manifest weight. Wagner v. Roche Laboratories (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 116, 671 N.E.2d 252. "When the party opposing the motion has failed to produce any evidence on one or more of the essential elements of a claim, a directed verdict is appropriate." Kimble Mixer Co. v. Hall, 5th Dist No. 2003 AP 01 0003, 2005-Ohio-794 at .
{ } Claar's complaint alleges that Munk was negligent and that negligence caused the wrongful death of Austin. To prove a claim of negligence, one must prove four elements: 1) the defendant had a duty; 2) the defendant breached that duty; 3) the plaintiff was injured; and 4) the breach of the duty was the proximate cause of the injury . The record is clear that Austin and Claar were injured when Austin died. Thus, the element of injury was not in debate. The record also indicates that Munk was the caretaker for Austin, so she had a duty to provide care for him. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Claar, a jury could reasonably conclude that Munk had breached that duty by placing the child on a twin mattress rather in the pack and play. However, there is no evidence that this breach was the proximate cause of Austin's death. Applegate testified that although placing the child on the twin bed rather than in the pack and play was a risk factor, there was no way to determine if Austin would have died anyway. According to her testimony, SIDS is impossible to predict and has occurred in children with no risk factors. At the same time, children with multiple risk factors may not die. Applegate further testified that since there was no way to tell exactly what was responsible for Austin's death, she listed the death as SIDS, a diagnosis of exclusion. She added that Claar requested she list the cause of death as positional asphyxiation as he believed Austin had suffocated, but she refused to change her conclusion as to the cause of death. She testified that she did not believe Austin had suffocated. Although Applegate believed that Munk's decision to lay Austin on the twin mattress was a risk factor, she did not testify that it was the proximate cause of his death. Without any evidence of proximate cause, an essential element of Claar's case has not been met. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict. The second assignment of error is overruled.
{ } Having found no merit to Claar's assignments of error, the judgment will not be reversed. Thus, the assignments of error in support of judgment need not be addressed.
{ } The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CUPP, P.J., and ROGERS, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|