 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Skinner v. Furman4/5/2005
k of oxygen to his brain for a significant period of time, resulting in the hypoxic brain injury. Defendants,however, presented evidence that Mr. Skinner suffered long-standing psychiatric conditions, including depression, which defendants contended caused Mr. Skinner's mental and emotional difficulties. Defendants' expert witnesses testified that there were a number of factors that could cause Mr. Skinner's symptoms, including the prior psychiatric problems.
This case was tried in Watagua County before Judge Richard L. Doughton. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, and judgment was entered 23 July 2003. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial that was denied and subsequently appealed to this Court.
I.
Plaintiffs' first assignment of error challenges the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding the duty of a doctor. The trial court used the following instruction:
Negligence refers to a person's failure to follow a duty of conduct imposed by law. Every healthcare provider is under a duty to use reasonable care and diligence in the application of his knowledge and skill to his patient's care and to provide healthcare in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same healthcare profession . . . with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time the healthcare is rendered.
Plaintiffs do not argue that this language was improper, but rather contend that the trial court should have added a more specific instruction regarding a doctor's duty " o possess the degree of professional learning, skill and ability which other general surgeons similarly situated ordinarily possess." The trial judgedeclined to give the requested instruction because he concluded that the issue was already encompassed within his instruction. We agree with the trial judge.
When instructing the jury, the trial court has the duty to declare and explain the law applicable to the evidence presented at trial. State v. Corn, 307 N.C. 79, 86, 296 S.E.2d 261, 267 (1982). "It is well established in this jurisdiction that a charge is to be construed as a whole and if, when so construed, it is sufficiently clear that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the jury was misled or misinformed, any exception to the charge will not be sustained even though the instruction could have been more aptly worded." State v. McKinnon, 306 N.C. 288, 300, 293 S.E.2d 118, 126 (1982).
In support of their requested instruction, plaintiffs point to the Supreme Court's description of a physician's duty in Hunt v. Bradshaw, 242 N.C. 517, 521-22, 88 S.E.2d 762, 765 (1955) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted):
A physician or surgeon who undertakes to render professional services must meet these requirements: (1) He must possess the degree of professional learning, skill and ability which others similarly situated ordinarily possess; (2) he must exercise reasonable care and diligence in the application of his knowledge and skill to the patient's case; and (3) he must use his best judgment in the treatment and care of his patient. If the physician or surgeon lives up to the foregoing requirements he is not civilly liable for the consequences. If he fails in any one particular, and such failure is the proximate cause of injury or damage, he is liable.
Subsequently, however, in Wall v. Stout, 310 N.C. 184, 193, 311 S.E.2d 571, 577 (1984), the Supreme Court described the Hunt standard as "completely unitary in nature, combining in one test the exercise of 'best judgment,' 'reasonable care and diligence' and compliance with the 'standards of practice among members of the same
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|