 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Betty Jean Shinholster v. Annapolis Hospital7/30/2004
ten days (April 7 through April 16) to take her medications was a proximate cause, it surely would have supported the same conclusion for a greater period-the previous year. Accordingly, the trial court clearly erred in precluding evidence made admissible by MCL 600.6304 and this prevented defendants from receiving a fair trial. MCR 2.611(A)(1)(a). New trials limited only to damage issues are disfavored. See Burns v Detroit, 468 Mich 881; 658 NW2d 468 (2003); Garrigan v LaSalle Coca-Cola Bottling Co, 373 Mich 485, 489; 185 NW2d 97 (1964).
More importantly, the jury must make a determination of liability (including comparative fault), taking into account the improperly excluded evidence; thus, a new trial limited to damages only would not be appropriate. Whether defendants contested the jury's finding that the standard of care was breached is irrelevant. In order to establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must prove: (1) a breach of the standard of medical care; (2) injury; (3) proximate cause-a definitive legally recognized linkage between the breach and the injury; and (4) damages. Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1, 10; 651 NW2d 356 (2002). Simply proving that there was a breach of the standard of care, without more, does not prove liability. A breach of the standard of care is only relevant if the trier of fact determines that that breach is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. It is entirely possible for a defendant to admit negligence and still argue there is no liability because the negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. Here, defendants were precluded from offering evidence that any breach of the standard of care was not the proximate cause of the decedent's injury, given her pretreatment negligence. Had the evidence been presented, the jury could reasonably have concluded that even if defendants had breached the standard of care, they still were not liable because any breach was not a proximate cause of the decedent's injuries. Therefore, a new trial on all issues, including liability, is necessary. Limiting the new trial to damages only ignores the important fact that proximate cause is essential to a plaintiff's prima facie case, and improperly conflates two separate and necessary elements of liability: of a breach of a standard of care and a showing that that breach was a proximate cause of the injury.
In fact, under our statutory scheme, the issues of liability and damages, as they relate to comparative negligence, are inextricably linked. MCL 600.2959 provides:
In an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury , property damage, or wrongful death, the court shall reduce the damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306. If that person's percentage of fault is greater than the aggregate fault of the other person or persons, whether or not parties to the action, the court shall reduce economic damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the person upon whose injury or death the damages are based as provided in section 6306, and non-economic damages shall not be awarded. [Emphasis added.]
In addition, M Civ JI 11.01, the standard jury instruction regarding comparative negligence, provides:
The total amount of damages that the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled to recover shall be reduced by the percentage of plaintiff's negligence that contributed as a proximate cause to [his/her] [injury/property damage.]
This is known as comparative negligence. (The plaintiff, however, is not entitled to non-economic damages if [he/ she] is more than 50 percent at fault for [his/
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|