Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the deceased inmate McMillen's estate and his minor son, appealed a jury verdict that favored CorrectCare-Integrated Health, Inc. and nurse Gloria Herrera. They alleged negligence in the medical care provided to McMillen during his incarceration. The trial court denied their motion for a directed verdict and did not instruct the jury on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, finding Herrera not negligent. The jury's verdict favored the defense, exonerating Herrera from any breach of the standard of care. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued procedural errors, including the denial of the directed verdict motion and improper jury instructions. However, the appellate court affirmed the main judgment, noting the applicability of res ipsa loquitur was not warranted due to the contested nature of the evidence. The court found no basis for CorrectCare's liability in the absence of Herrera's negligence. Regarding the award of costs, the appellate court reversed and remanded the supplemental judgment, directing the trial court to recalculate witness allowances based on actual expenses. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with directions for further proceedings on the cost issue.
Legal Issues Addressed
Award of Costs in Legal Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court partially agreed with the plaintiffs' objection to the award of costs for defense witness expenses, directing the trial court to recalculate the awards based on actual expenses incurred.
Reasoning: The court partially agreed with Bryan and Camenzind's objection concerning daily allowances of $100 each for Herrera and two expert defense witnesses.
Directed Verdict in Medical Negligencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court appropriately denied the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict, as evidence showed that nurse Herrera adhered to the standard of care, and the plaintiffs failed to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Reasoning: The trial court appropriately declined to direct a verdict against the defense.
Liability for Employee Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: CorrectCare could not be held liable for Herrera's actions since the jury found her not negligent, and any potential liability would have depended on her negligence.
Reasoning: The court found that since the jury had exonerated Herrera regarding her adherence to the standard of care, CorrectCare could not be held liable.
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was justified as the doctrine did not apply to the contested medical negligence case.
Reasoning: The trial court's refusal to provide this instruction was justified, as the doctrine did not apply to the case at hand.