Clark v. Durrani

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 3096

Syllabus

CIV.R. 50(B) — JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT — CIV.R. 59(A) — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION — EVID.R. 601(B)(5)(b) — EXPERT WITNESS —PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES — CIV.R. 17(A) —REAL PARTY IN INTEREST — CIV.R. 19(A) — JOINDER: In a medical-malpractice case, the trial court did not err by denying defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B) where the evidence showed that reasonable minds could not conclude in defendants' favor, and the weight of the evidence was not contrary to the judgment and no reason for good cause to grant the motions was shown. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting defendants' request for a comparative-negligence instruction where there was no evidence to support giving the instruction. The trial court did not err a matter of law in giving its instruction on defendant doctor's absence at trial as the trial court informed the jury that any inferences it drew from defendant doctor's absence were permissive, not required; further, the fact that the jury found for defendants on some claims, and the instructions were tested by interrogatories, demonstrated the trial court's instruction did not affect the jury's verdict. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting plaintiffs' doctor-witness to testify as an expert where Evid.R. 601(B)(5)(b), as amended in July 2023, applied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiff's motion for past medical expenses where the plaintiff's health insurer had a subrogation agreement under which the insurer would collect the medical expenses it paid on plaintiff's behalf from plaintiff's damages. The trial court did not err by denying defendants' motion in the alternative for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A).