 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ramey v. Knorr10/17/2005
was substantial evidence that she did not meet the requirements of the sudden mental incapacity defense.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Lastly, Knorr argues the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on the sudden mental incapacity defense and in giving certain jury instructions. Knorr bases this argument on the trial court's alleged error in granting a directed verdict for Ramey and preventing Knorr from arguing her theory of the case to the jury.
A party is entitled to have the jury instructed on his or her theory of the case as long as there is evidence to support the theory. The trial court has discretion whether to give a particular instruction to the jury and the 'trial court's refusal to give a requested instruction is reviewed only for abuse of discretion.'
Where there is substantial evidence to support a theory, a trial court must instruct the jury on that theory.
Relying on Hawkins v. Marshall, Knorr argues the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the sudden mental incapacity defense was reversible error because she was prevented from arguing her theory of the case. In Hawkins, the trial court instructed the jury that if they found in plaintiff's favor they must award the entire medical expenses claimed.
The court of appeals reversed because the instruction was an 'incorrect statement of law, misled the jury, removed the jury's discretion to determine the proper amount of damages, and precluded {defendant} from arguing her theory of the case.'
Unlike Hawkins, the trial court did not misstate the law in the instructions to the jury. Sudden mental incapacity generally is not accepted as a defense to negligence and there is substantial evidence that Knorr does not meet the sudden mental incapacity exception. Because it was not error for the trial court to grant a directed verdict for Ramey, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on the sudden mental incapacity defense. The proposed jury instructions on sudden mental incapacity were properly withheld and the instructions without the defense were properly given.
To summarize, the trial court properly denied Knorr's summary judgment motion because there were then genuine issues of material fact. At the close of the evidence at trial, the court properly granted the CR 50 motion. There was no need to either adopt or reject the Breunig exception in ruling on that motion, and we decline to do either here. The trial court properly refused the instructions proposed by Knorr and the instructions the court gave were proper. The CR 59 motion was properly denied.
We affirm the trial court rulings in all respects.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|