Skip to main content
· 11/26/2025

Haggard v. Durrani

Citations

  • 2025 Ohio 5327

Syllabus

CIV.R. 42 — EVID.R. 601(B)(5)(b) — HABIT EVIDENCE — JURY INSTRUCTIONS— PUNITIVE DAMAGES — SETOFF — CIV.R. 19(A) — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION — R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(b): 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. 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 issuing an absent-defendant instruction that advised that the defendant doctor's absence from the trial gave rise to a negative inference but also advised that the jury retained the discretion to make or reject inferences. The trial court did not err in curing the absence of plaintiffs' insurers as the real parties in interest under Civ.R. 19(A) by excusing defendant's payment for past medical expenses, absent appropriate releases. The trial court did not err in limiting the demonstration of spinal anatomy by defense experts because such demonstrations would have been cumulative. The trial court did not err in allowing an award for the plaintiffs' future medical damages where predictive evidence was submitted at trial. The trial court erred in failing to cap punitive damages against an individual doctor-defendant at $350,000 pursuant to R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(b), as the statute imposes a

Judges: Kinsley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.