Courtney v. Durrani
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 2335
Syllabus
CIV.R. 42 — EVID.R. 601(B)(5)(b) — HABIT EVIDENCE — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION – CIV.R. 19(A): The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Civ.R. 42 in joining plaintiffs' medical claims for trial where plaintiffs proceeded under similar legal theories, received similar surgeries from defendant, and presented identical expert witnesses, thus creating common questions of law and fact. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial court did not om holding a joint professional-negligence jury trial where this court's precedent permits such claims to be joined and defendant-doctor failed to raise a general prejudice argument below; however, jointing professional-negligence claims for trial against the same defendant-professional carries an unacceptable risk of prejudice from jury confusion and verdicts based on improper propensity considerations.] The trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a physician witness as to defendant's habit in advising his patients where the physician witness did not testify to a proper foundation for defendant's habit, but the error was harmless because there was no indication the jury relied on this testimony in reaching its verdicts. The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of an expert medical witness where the witness satisfied the standard of active clinical practice in the July 2023 version of Civ.R. 601(B)(5)(b), which applied to plaintiffs' cases because they were pending at the time. The trial court did not err in rejecting defendants' request for a comparative negligence jury instruction, because defendants failed to present evidence that plaintiffs' failure to complete physical therapy and their return to demanding jobs caused their ongoing injuries. The trial court did not commit reversible error in issuing an absent-defendant jury instruction that advised that defendant doctor's absence from trial gave rise to a negative inference but also advised that the jury retained th
Judges: Kinsley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.